£*• 


-*> 


(X 
PQ- 


w 

CO 

W 
K 


Z 

O 

O 

=       fr  j 

*    O 

h 

co 
PC 
W 

5 
b 


.1 


& 


UNIVERSALISM 


PARTIALISM 


IN  A 


SERIES    OF    LECTURES 


DELIVERED    Ilf 


NEWBURYPORT,   MASS. 


BY  WOODBURY  M.  FERNALD. 


BOSTON: 
PUBLISHED  BY  B.  B.  MUBSEY, 


77T 


Entered  according  to  an  act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1840, 

BY    WOODBURY    M.    FERNALD, 

in  the  clerk's  office  of  the  district  court  of  Massachusetts. 


PRINTED   BY   WILLIAM   A.    HALL    &   CO. 


PREFACE. 


IN  submitting  these  lectures  to  the  public, 
the  author  has  proceeded  upon  the  utilitarian 
principle.  He  would  not  have  this  volume 
considered  a  competitor  with  other  and  more 
voluminous  works  upon  the  same  subject, 
which  have  recently  made  their  appearance ; 
and  he  is  happy  in  being  enabled  to  inform 
the  reader  that  he  has  not  chanced  to  follow 
the  same  track  of  thought  which  has  been 
marked  out  in  the  works  referred  to.  In  the 
publication  of  these  lectures,  he  has  complied 
with  a  request  from  the  people  who  attended 
their  delivery.  The  Universalists  of  Newbu* 
typort  have  been  the  means  of  placing  this 
book  before  the  public ;  and  I  rejoice  that 
Newburyport,  the  darkest  town  in  the  Com- 
monwealth, has  issued  forth  something  in  the 


IV  PREFACE. 

shape  of  a  book,  humble  though  it  may  be, 
which  treats  of  the  SALVATION  OF  THE  WORLD. 
May  it  not  be  the  greatest  nor  the  last.  Amen. 

TO    PAfcTIALISTS. 

One  word  about  the  title  which  I  have 
thought  proper  to  prefix  to  this  work.  By 
the  term  partialism  I  mean  no  disrespect. 
Here  I  have  consulted  propriety  and  the  fit- 
ness of  things.  We  call  ourselves  Univer- 
salists  because  we  believe  in  the  ultimate, 
universal  salvation  of  the  world.  In  these 
lectures  I  have  labored  to  present  the  claims 
of  two  opposite  doctrines.  You  believe  in 
but  a  partial  salvation  ;  and  what,  therefore, 
for  an  argument  of  this  kind,  could  I  have 
chosen  more  appropriate  to  contrast  with  Uni- 
versalism  ?  I  beg,  therefore,  that  you  will 
consider  it  no  disrespect ;  and,  as  long  as  you 
hold  to  what  you  now  do,  to  be  content  with 
the  fitting  title  we  have  chosen  to  indicate 
the  contents  of  our  book,  —  Universalism 
AGAINST  Partialism. 

Again,  these  lectures,  remember,  were  de- 
livered under  peculiar  circumstances.  With 
a  sincere  desire  to  elucidate  and  promote  the 
truth,  liberty  was  publicly  advertised,  and 


PREFACE.  ¥ 

freely  offered,  at  the  close  of  each,  for  any, 
and  especially  clergymen,  to  controvert  the 
sentiments  promulgated.  No  clergyman  ap- 
peared. Now  it  must  have  been  for  one  of 
three  reasons :  either,  first,  that  they  had  not 
sufficient  confidence  in  their  own  partial  sys- 
tems; or,  second,  that  they  feared  that  the 
more  they  stirred  the  matter,  the  worse  it 
would  be  for  them;  or,  third,  that  they  could 
not  stoop  to  such  a  defence  of  their  theory. 
If  they  have  not  confidence  in  their  partial 
systems,  we  advise  them  to  cease  preaching 
them :  if  they  feared  to  stir  the  matter,  we 
refer  them  to  John  xi.  48 :  if  they  could  not 
stoop  to  such  a  defence  of  their  theory,  we 
refer  them  to  the  conduct  of  St.  Paul,  who 
could  "  dispute  "  even  "  in  the  market  daily 
with  them  that  met  with  him,  (Acts  xvii.  17;) 
and  also  to  the  "  awful  responsibility  "  which, 
if  their  doctrine  bo  true,  rests  upon  them,  in 
suffering  so  many  to  be  misled,  when  oppor- 
tunity was  offered  to  undeceive  them  ;  for  the 
delivery  of  the  lectures  has  made  some  con- 
verts, and  the  reading  of  them  may  make  more. 

TO    I'MVERSALISTS. 

In   perusing  the   following  lectures,  you 
may  not  be  struck  with  anything  particularly 


IV  PREFACE. 

shape  of  a  book,  humble  though  it  may  be, 
which  treats  of  the  SALVATION  OF  THE  WORLD. 
May  it  not  be  the  greatest  nor  the  last.  Amen. 

TO    PAfcTJALISTS. 

One  word  about  the  title  which  I  have 
thought  proper  to  prefix  to  this  work.  By 
the  term  partialism  I  mean  no  disrespect. 
Here  I  have  consulted  propriety  and  the  fit- 
ness of  things.  We  call  ourselves  Univer- 
salists  because  we  believe  in  the  ultimate, 
universal  salvation  of  the  world.  In  these 
lectures  I  have  labored  to  present  the  claims 
of  two  opposite  doctrines.  You  believe  in 
but  a  partial  salvation  ;  and  what,  therefore, 
for  an  argument  of  this  kind,  could  I  have 
chosen  more  appropriate  to  contrast  with  Uni- 
versalism  ?  I  beg,  therefore,  that  you  will 
consider  it  no  disrespect ;  and,  as  long  as  you 
hold  to  what  you  now  do,  to  be  content  with 
the  fitting  title  we  have  chosen  to  indicate 
the  contents  of  our  book,  —  Universalism 
AGAINST  Partialism. 

Again,  these  lectures,  remember,  were  de- 
livered under  peculiar  circumstances.  With 
a  sincere  desire  to  elucidate  and  promote  the 
truth,  liberty  was  publicly  advertised,  and 


PREFACE.  r 

freely  offered,  at  the  close  of  each,  for  any, 
and  especially  clergymen,  to  controvert  the 
sentiments  promulgated.  No  clergyman  ap- 
peared. Now  it  must  have  been  for  one  of 
three  reasons:  either,  first,  that  they  had  not 
sufficient  confidence  in  their  own  partial  sys- 
tems; or,  second,  that  they  feared  that  the 
more  they  stirred  the  matter,  the  worse  it 
would  be  for  them;  or,  third,  that  they  could 
not  stoop  to  such  a  defence  of  their  theory. 
If  they  have  not  confidence  in  their  partial 
systems,  we  advise  them  to  cease  preaching 
them :  if  they  feared  to  stir  the  matter,  we 
refer  them  to  John  xi.  48 :  if  they  could  not 
stoop  to  such  a  defence  of  their  theory,  we 
refer  them  to  the  conduct  of  St.  Paul,  who 
could  "  dispute  "  even  "  in  the  market  daily 
with  them  that  met  with  him,  (Actsxvii.  17;) 
and  also  to  the  "  awful  responsibility  "  which, 
if  their  doctrine  bo  true,  rests  upon  them,  in 
suffering  so  many  to  be  misled,  when  oppor- 
tunity was  offered  to  undeceive  them  ;  for  the 
delivery  of  the  lectures  has  made  some  con- 
verts, and  the  reading  of  them  may  make  more. 

TO    UNIVERSALISTS. 

In   perusing  the   following  lectures,  you 
may  not  be  struck  with  any  thing  particularly 


VI  PREFACE. 

new.  If  we  have  presented  old  matters  in  a 
new  light,  or  even  decently  well  in  an  old 
light,  we  are  contented.  Our  object  has  been, 
not  to  kindle  any  strange  fire,  but  to  hold  the 
light  to  those  who  "  walk  in  darkness,  and 
dwell  in  the  land  of  the  shadow  of  death." 

Again,  some  apology  is  necessary  for  the 
appearance  of  about  twenty  pages,  in  the  first 
and  second  lectures,  which  have  been  before 
published  in  a  pamphlet.  The  reason  is,  as 
it  was  found  necessary  to  present  the  same 
subjects  again  which  had  been  reviewed  in 
the  pamphlet,  and  as  the  matter  of  the  pam- 
phlet had  not  been  read  or  delivered  in  this 
town,  a  transcript  was  made  from  it  into  two 
of  the  lectures.  But  the  matter  is  but  small, 
and  the  bare  mention  of  it  is  sufficient. 

May  the  whole  be  instrumental  in  leading 
many  to  the  truth,  through  Jesus  Christ  our 

Lord. 

W.  M.  F. 

Newburyport,  Mass.  1840. 


CONTENTS. 


LECTURE  I. 

USE  of  Human  Ren«on,  p.  13.  Argument  from  the  Wisdom  of  the 
Deity  against  the  C*l\  ii.utic  System,  18  Argument  f ruin  the  tame 
Attribute  against  Arminianivm,  20.  Free  Agency  in  K.ternhy,  <?2. 
Calvmiim  10  reference  to  the  Power  of  God,  94.  Arminiani*m 
inconiintent  with  this  Power.  25.  Argument  from  the  Justice 
of  God,  96.  Object  of  Justice  in  administering  I'uninhmcnt.  98. 
Argument  from  the  Foreknowledge  of  God,  30.  Degree  of  Pun- 
ishment which  Ju«iice  require*,  32,  Infinite  Sin,  :«.  Dr  Jona- 
than Edwards's  distinction  between  J*j»iit  and  HnJtu*  Punish- 
ment, 36.  Endless  Punishment  as  a  consequence  of  Endless  Sin,  36. 
The  glory  due  unto  Calvinism,  43,  The  admitted  Justice  of  Endless 
Punishment  inconsistent  with  the  exposure  to  it,  44.  Brief  notice  of 
toe  Attributes  of  Love  and  Mercy,  46.  Truth  and  its  Influence,  47. 

LECTURE    II 

Tho  threatening  of  Endless  Punishment  not  found  in  connection  with 
I  AW,  50.  Concession  of  eminent  Orthodox  Commentators, 
58.  Objection  considered  that  a  future  Life  was  not  revealed,  54. 
The  supposed  Penalty  of  Endless  Misery  would  subvert  the  very  Law 
iueir,  56.  This  Doctrine  maintained  at  the  Expense  of  God's  Immu- 
tability, CO.  Objection  considered,  Gl.  This  Doctrine  detracts  from 
the  glory  and  efficiency  of  Jesus  Christ,  64.  It  also  attaches  more 
importance  to  toe  Works  of  Men  than  to  the  Grace  of  God,  66.  Com- 
parison of  the  Sunshine,  the  Labor,  and  the  Harvest,  67.  Argument 
from  Christian  Charity,  69.  KndleM  Punishment  for  all  Mankind,  71. 
Moral  influence  of  llio  Doctrine  of  Endless  Punishment,  70.  What 
oufht  to  be  the  effect  of  it,  75.  Believers  in  this  Doctrine  act  from 
different  motives,  76.  The  Doctrine  of  Endless  Punishment  contra- 
dicted by  the  Scriptures,  78.  Conclusion  of  the  whole  Argument 
agaioat  it,  78, 

LECTURE   Ilf. 

Distinction  between  things  which  are,  and  thinp  which  are  not,  proper 
subjects  of  Human  Keason,  83.  Orthodox  presumption  upon  the 
Powers  of  Human  Intellect,  87.  The  doctrine  of  Universal  and  Etcrnul 
Salvation  the  only  one  but  what  insults  our  Keason  at  the  very  first 
consideration  of  it,  89.  The  doctrine  of  Annihilation,  90.  Endless 
Misery  compared  with  Atheism,  92.  "  All  partial  Evil  universal 
Good,"  93.  Extract  from  Soame  Jenyne,  95.  Consideration  of  Moral 
Evil,  99.  Dr.  Thomas  Chalmers  arrayed  against  himself.  101.  A 
new  Thought  upon  the  supposed  conflicting  Attributes  of  Justice  and 
Mercy,  105.  The  inconsistent  Nature  of  God's  commands,  in  connec- 
tion with  Partialiat  Theology,  108.  The  parental  Relationship  of  God 
to  all  Mankind,  111.  Does  Sin  destroy  this  Relationship  ?  114.  The 
honor  of  the  Universal  Father,  115.  The  doctrine  of  Universal  Salva- 
tion congenial  with  all  holy  desires,  117.  The  conflict  between  "  Or- 
thodox "preaching  and  praying,  118.  Dr.  Clarke  on  tbia Subject,  119. 

LECTURE   IV. 

Facility  with  which  Men  apply  the  Threatening!  to  a  Future  State,  123. 
The  first  Promise  in  the  Bible,  124.  The  promises  to  Abraham,  Isaac, 
and  Jacob.  195.  Affirmed  conditionally  of  the  Promises,  127.  Con- 
nection of  testimony  in  the  order  of  Theology,  for  the  Salvation  of  the 


Vlll  CONTENTS. 

World,  130.  Promiscuous  Scriptures  in  establishment  of  the  same 
Truth,  134.  Dr.  Clarke  on  Romans  5th,  137.  God  the  Saviour  of  all, 
especially  of  those  that  believe  (critical  examination,)  142.  General  Re- 
marks on  the  passages  made  use  of  to  establish  Endless  Punishment,  148. 

LECTURE   V. 

Character  of  the  Opposition  against  Universalists,  154.  General  nature 
of  the  Objections  to  Universalism,  156'.  Objection  that  Universalism 
is  the  duvil's  doctrine  carefully  considered,  159.  Who  has  espoused 
the  sentiment  of  Satan  .'  162.  A  guess  at  what  the  devil's  doctrine 
would  be,  all  partiality  for  him  aside,  165.  Objection  that  Univer- 
»alism  is  a  species  of  InnMelity,  169.  The  dishonesty  of  those  who 
bring  this  Charge,  170.  Vniversalism  the  only  cure  for  Infidelity,  172. 
"Orthodoxy"  the  great  engine  for  its  promotion,  174.  Objection  that 
Univeralism  is  a  new  Doctrine,  175.  Historical  reference  to  the  in- 
troduction of  the  Doctrine  of  Endless  Torments  to  the  Church,  178. 
Character  of  its  Introducer  compared  with  that  of  Christ,  179.  His- 
torical reference  to  the  doctrine  of  Universalism,  180.  Objection  that 
Universalism  is  the  production  of  a  one-sided  view  of  the  Bible,  182. 
Universalist's  special  study  of  the  nature  of  God's  denunciations,  184. 
Objection  that  Universalism  involves  a  denial  of  the  Justice  of  Jehovah, 
186.  Objection  that  it  is  the  result  of  an  unprincipled  perversion  of 
the  Scriptures,  189.  Orthodox  Manufactures,  189.  Ignorance  of  our 
Exposition  of  the  Scriptures,  191.  Objection  that.  Universalism  is  par- 
ticularly pleasing  to  the  Carnal  Mind,  192.  This  Objection  with  refer- 
ence to  a  Knowledge  of  the  tendency  of  Carnal  Mind,  195.  Endless 
Damnation  a  doctrine  of  the  Carnal  Mind,  196.  Objection  that  Uni- 
versalism is  "too  good  to  bo  true,"  197.  Objection  that  Universalism 
is  built  upon  a  denial  of  the  Free  Agency  of  Man,  199.  Objection  that 
the  Doctrine  will  not  do  to  die  by,  201.  Failure  of  Partialism  in  the 
dying  hour,  204. 

LECTURE  VI. 

Orthodox  manner  of  appropriating  honors  and  virtue,  207.  Illustration 
from  comparison,  of  the  recklessness  of  sinning  in  view  of  abounding 
Grace,  213.  The  terrors  of  the  Evil  Way,  217.  Objection  that  Con- 
science may  become  seared,  219.  What  is  true  Morality?  221.  In- 
fluence of  Love  in  securing  the  Duties  which  we  owe  to  God,  223.  The 
same  influence  with  reference  to  Social  Duties,  223.  What  are  the 
means  or  measures  best  adapted  to  produce  Love  to  God  ?  224.  What 
are  the  means  best  adapted  to  produce  Love  to  Man  ?  226.  The  other 
half  of  the  Orthodox  influence,  227.  Facility  with  which  Orthodoxy 
turns  the  Almighty,  228.  The  thing  to  be  done,  229.  The  utter  fu- 
tility of  the  popular  Motives  for  Obedience,  230.  Two  Horns  of  a 
Dilemma,  231.  The  cloven  foot  of  the  concealed  abomination,  232. 
The  demoralizing  tendency  of  Partialism,  23  The  enginery  of  our 
Moral  Power,  234.  An  Appeal  from  theory  to  fact,  in  defence  of  the 
moral  tendency  of  Universe  list  sentiments,  235.  History  of  Saul  and 
David,  237.  Reference  to  Howard,  239.  To  Oberlin,  240.  To  Penn, 
241.  Connecticut  State's  Prison,  242.  Reference  to  the  Insane.  246. 
What  Endless  Misery  is  fitted  for,  and  what  it  does,  247. 

APPENDIX. 

Objection  that  Universalism,  if  true,  renders  preaching  useless,  249. 
What  might  be  the  foulest  imaginable  impiety,  254.  A  Question  for 
Partialists,  254.  Argument  of  the  two  chances  and  the  safe  side, 
255.  The  "  Orthodoxy  "  of  Newburyport,  Mass.  257.  The  true  Doe- 
trine  of  Forgiveness,  258.  True  use  of  Repentance,  261.  The  new 
Birth,  264.  Hell,  265.  Improvements  of  »« Orthodoxy,"  265.  The 
only  thing  necessary  for  its  destruction,  266. 


UNIVERSITY 


LECTURES. 


LECTURE   1. 

ARGUMENT    AGAINST    THE     DOCTRINE     OF     ENDLESS 
PUNISHMENT. 

Thou  art  weighed  in  the  balances,  and  art  found  want- 
ing.    Daniel  v.  27. 

THE  present  is  an  age  of  free  and  fearless  inves- 
tigation. I  rejoice  that  it  is  so.  In  every  depart- 
ment of  the  public  good  —  in  politics,  in  morals, 
in  religion,  especially  the  latter — inquiry  is  on  the 
wing.  It  has  gone  forth,  and  will  go  forth  —  to  the 
enlightening  of  the  great  body  of  the  community, 
to  the  subversion  of  some  systems  and  the  estab- 
lishment of  others — till  truth  alone,  unmixed  with 
error,  shall  pervade  and  purify  the  entire  mass  of 
mind.  Doctrines  and  systems  venerated  for  their 
antiquity,  and  received  upon  authority  of  ancestral 
instruction,  untouched  for  centuries  by  a  quiescent 
complacency  in  supposed  indubitable  truth,  are 
now  being  questioned,  doubted,  and  rejected  f 
2 


10  UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

and  the  most  keen  and  searching  glances  are  sent 
into  every  creed.  The  day  should  be  hailed  as  a 
day  auspicious  to  the  cause  of  human  liberty.  Un- 
fettered thought  will  rise,  and  assert  its  high  su- 
premacy. God  will  yet  show  that  his  name  is 
honored  in  the  truths  which  had  their  origin  in  him  ; 
and  ours  be  the  task  to  be  first  in  the  sacred  cause, 
and  zealous  for  the  honor  of  his  glory. 

The  subject  and  the  object  of  these  lectures  we 
would  have  distinctly  understood.  The  affairs  of 
time  are  unworthy  to  be  compared  with  the  con- 
cerns of  eternity ;  and  this  fact  alone  is  a  sufficient 
reason  for  inviting  your  attention  again  and  again 
to  the  question  of  our  immortal  interests.  There 
is  no  subject  so  important  as  this.  All  controversy 
is  waived  in  reference  to  the  importance  of  the 
matters  which  we  now  present ;  though  there  is  a 
sect  of  Christians  who  seem  to  think  a  silence,  or  a 
non-committal  policy,  is  the  more  safe  or  expedient 
course  in  reference  to  this  most  stirring  subject. 
We,  however,  have  no  sympathy  for  this  opinion. 
If  the  Scriptures,  professing  to  be  a  revelation  from 
God,  and  especially  the  gospel,  the  great  and  main 
object  of  which  was  to  bring  "life  and  immortality 
to  light,"  does  not  inform  us  of  the  state  or  condi- 
tion of  our  immortality,  enough  to  satisfy  us  con- 
cerning its  blessedness  or  misery,  then  this  pro- 
fessed revelation  is  unworthy  of  the  name.  We 
hold,  that,  if  any  subject  should  be  presented  in 
definite  language,  it  is  this ;  or  if  any  truth  should 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.  11 

be  revealed  most  clearly  in  the  sacred  volume,  this 
should  be  written  in  characters  of  LIGHT,  that  all 
might  see,  and  either  tremble  or  adore,  and  that 
none  might  plead  obscurity  in  the  Scriptures  as  an 
excuse  for  unsettled  opinions,  or  modesty  in  declar- 
ing them.  We  believe  that  such  is  the  character 
of  the  revelation  which  we  have.  "  We  believe, 
and  therefore  speak." 

To  those  who  do  not  admit  the  authority  of  the 
Scriptures,  of  course,  we  have  now  nothing  to  offer. 
Our  argument  is  with  those  who  are  willing  to  go 
with  us  "  to  the  law  and  to  the  testimony." 

Let  me  caution  you,  too,  against  prejudice. 
This  is  a  mountain  barrier  to  truth.  Some  of  you, 
my  friends,  may  be  wofully^set  against  the  doc- 
trine we  shall  endeavor  to  establish  ;  and  you  may, 
perchance,  deem  the  speaker  an  advocate  of  a 
most  pernicious  heresy •,  which,  if  persisted  in,  will 
land  him  in  the  regions  of  never-ending  night. 
But  we  cannot  stop  to  argue  these  things  with  you 
now  :  we  only  invite  your  attention,  your  candor, 
and  your  good,  unbiased  judgment.  We  may  be 
in  error.  You  may  be  in  error.  It  becomes  us 
all,  then,  to  submit  the  matter  to  an  impartial  judg- 
ment ;  to  "  prove  all  things,  and  hold  fast  that 
which  "  seemeth  to  us  "  good." 

You  will  perceive,  my  brethren,  that  we  have 
chosen  rather  a  motto  than  a  text,  as  the  founda- 
tion of  our  two  first  lectures.  It  was  a  part  of  the 
interpretation  of  the  mysterious  hand- writing  on  the 


12  UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PART1ALISM. 

wall,  denoting  the  downfall  of  the  kingdom  of  the 
impious  Belshazzar.  Tekel  was  written  there : 
the  text  is  the  interpretation.  We  have  selected 
Tekel  as  an  appropriate  motto  for  this  division  of 
our  subject,  which  shall  be  against  the  doctrine  of 
endless  punishment.  "Thou  art  weighed  in  the 
balances,  and  art  found  wanting,"  —  wanting,  as 
we  shall  attempt  to  show,  matter  of  fact  to  sup- 
port it. 

With  regard,  now,  to  the  course  of  argument  to 
be  pursued,  I  wish  to  offer  a  few  remarks  on  the 
use  of  human  reason.  This  I  shall  do  in  the  lan- 
guage of  Rev.  Albert  Barnes,  of  Philadelphia,  a 
Presbyterian  clergyman,  and  author  of  the  Notes 
upon  the  New  Testament :  "  We  have  sat  down  in 
pensive  grief,  when  we  heard  from  the  lips  of  tyros 
in  divinity  (as  the  first  message  which  they  bring 
us)  solemn  and  unmeasured  denunciations  of  reason 
in  matters  of  religion.  We  have  asked  ourselves 
whence  the  herald  has  derived  his  commission  to 
commence  an  assault  on  what  has  been  implanted 
in  the  bosom  of  man  by  the  hand  of  the  Almighty. 
Has  the  book  which  he  holds  in  his  hands  told  him 
to  utter  unfeeling  and  proscriptive  maledictions  on 
all  just  views  of  mental  operations  ?  Has  God 
commissioned  him  to  summon  the  world  to  a  rejec- 
tion of  all  the  lessons  taught  by  the  investigations 
of  mind,  the  decisions  of  conscience,  and  the  course 
of  events?  Is  the  God  who  has  hitherto  been 
thought  to  be  the  God  of  creation  and  providence 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.  13 

coming  forth,  in  the  old  age  and  decrepitude  of  the 
world,  to  declare  that  the  fundamental  principles  of 
civil  society,  the  judicial  inflictions  of  his  hand,  the 
lessons  taught  us  in  parental  and  filial  intercourse, 
and  in  the  reasonings  of  sober  men  with  the  eye 
upturned  to  heaven,  have  all  been  delusive ;  and 
that  the  new  revelation  is  to  set  at  defiance  all  that 
has  been  ascertained  to  be  law,  and  all  that  the 
world  has  supposed  to  be  just  maxims  in  morals  ? 
We  marvel  not  that  thinking  men  shrink  from  such 
sweeping  denunciations. 

It  is  a  maxim,  we  think,  which  should  rule  in  the 
hearts  of  Christian  men,  and 

1  Most  of  all,  in  man  that  ministers, 
And  serves  the  altar,' 

that  the  world  is  to  be  convinced  that  Christians 
are  not  of  necessity  fools.  And  in  doing  this,  we 
care  not  how  much  of  sound  reason,  and  true  phi- 
losophy, and  the  analogies  of  nature,  are  brought 
into  the  sacred  desk.  The  truth  is,  that  religion 
sets  up  its  jurisdiction  over  all  the  operations  of  the 
mind.  And  the  truth  is,  also,  that  those  who  have 
done  most  to  vilify  and  abuse  the  use  of  reason, 
have  been  the  very  men  who  have  incorporated  the 
most  of  false  philosophy  into  their  systems  of  divin- 
ity." * 

This  is  very  nearly  of  a  piece  with  Dr.  Chan- 

*  Introductory  Essay  to  Butler's  Analogy,  by  A.  Barnes, 
p.  58. 

2* 


14  UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

ning  :  "  We  indeed  grant  that  the  use  of  reason  in 
religion  is  accompanied  with  danger.  But  we  ask 
any  honest  man  to  look  back  on  the  history  of  the 
church,  and  say  whether  the  renunciation  of  it  be 
not  still  more  dangerous.  The  worst  errors,  after 
all,  have  sprung  up  in  that  church  which  proscribes 
reason,  and  demands  from  its  members  implicit 
faith.  The  most  pernicious  doctrines  have  been 
the  growth  of  the  darkest  times,  when  the  general 
credulity  encouraged  bad  men  to  broach  their 
schemes  and  inventions,  and  to  stifle  the  faint  re- 
monstrances of  reason,  by  the  menaces  of  everlast* 
ing  perdition." 

We  endorse  these  sentiments  on  the  subject  of 
human  reason.  It  would  have  been  well,  at  least 
for  the  first  quoted  author,  if,  in  some  essential 
matters,  he  had  adhered  himself  to  the  principles 
which  he  laid  down  for  others,  When,  therefore, 
we  appeal  to  the  Bible,  or  to  the  nature  of  God,  or 
to  the  principles  of  his  government,  we  do  it  in  a 
rational  manner.  We  do  not  prostrate  our  rea- 
soning faculties  in  humble  obeisance  to  any  creed. 
We  go  to  the  work  as  though  no  creeds  under 
heaven  were  in  existence.  We  go  to  it,  in  short, 
not  to  support  a  creed,  but  to  examine  its  support ; 
and  with  just  as  little  reverence  for  human  creeds 
as  though  the  Bible  stood  point  blank  against  every 
creed  in  existence. 

Now,  of  the  various  systems  of  arrangement 
which  we  might  select  for  the  prosecution  of  our 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.  15 

subject,  we  know  of  none  more  in  order,  or  better 
fitted  to  produce  conviction,  than  to  begin,  in  the 
argument,  with  the  nature  of  that  God  who  is  the 
author  of  all  truth,  and  then  to  appeal  to  the  writ- 
ten records  of  his  truth  as  given  to  the  world. 

But  here  it  is  necessary,  before  we  come  direct- 
ly in  contact  with  the  subject,  to  anticipate  an 
objection  in  the  outset.  This  objection  is  founded 
on  human  agency.  It  is  assumed,  at  the  onset,  by 
some  controversialists,  that  the  Deity,  in  the  plan 
of  creation  and  providence,  had  this  point  deter- 
mined on  and  settled, —  that  he  must  make  man  a 
free  moral  agent.  And  if  this  was  in  the  great 
plan,  as  of  absolute  necessity  to  a  wise  moral  gov- 
ernment, and  could  not,  on  any  condition,  be  given 
up  or  changed,  we  must  not  be  allowed,  in  any  of 
our  conclusions  from  the  nature  of  the  Deity,  to 
rest  in  any  thing  which  would  overturn  this  truth. 
For  instance,  if  we  reason,  from  the  goodness  of 
Jehovah,  against  the  doctrine  of  endless  punish- 
ment, we  must  not  rest  in  the  conclusion,  if  free 
agency  opposes  it.  This  truth  must  be  admitted 
at  all  events.  And  if,  notwithstanding  the  good- 
ness of  the  Deity,  he  could  not  make  man  a  free 
moral  agent  without  setting  before  him  "  infinite 
joy  and  endless  wo,"  then  we  must  admit  the  truth 
and  reasonableness  of  such  a  punishment,  even 
though,  without  the  consideration  of  human  agen- 
cy, the  goodness  of  God  might  first  seem  to  be  in 
opposition  with  it. 


16  UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

Now,  without  entering  at  all  into  the  vexed 
question  of  human  agency  and  divine  sovereignty, 
which  has  formed  the  debates  of  ages,  and  the 
matter  of  innumerable  folios,  we  are  so  fortunate 
as  to  be  freed  from  this  perplexity,  even  admitting 
the  truth  of  the  sentiment  in  question.  Even  ad- 
mitting, I  say,  the  truth  of  the  proposition  that  the 
Deity  did  set  out  with  one  point  determined  on  — 
that  of  constituting  man  a  free  agent,  in  the  broad- 
est Arminian  sense  of  the  phrase  —  yet  this  does 
not  stand  at  all  in  the  way  of  our  argument  from 
the  nature  of  the  Deity,  against  the  doctrine  of 
unceasing  punishment.  The  way  we  are  cleared 
from  this  maze  is  this :  the  one  may  be  true  with- 
out the  other.  Free  agency  may  be  true,  and 
endless  punishment  false.  The  two  points  are  not 
necessarily  connected.  God  might,  as  far  as  we 
can  see,  and,  permit  me  to  say,  as  far  as  you  can 
see,  have  made  man  a  free  agent,  without  exposing 
him  to  an  endless  curse.  What  if  the  penalty  of 
the  law  was  intolerable  torment  for  millions  of 
millions  of  protracted  ages  ?  —  a  period  of  time 
which  no  mortal  can  comprehend  ;  surely,  it  would 
not  be  necessary  to  double  and  treble  it,  and  pro- 
tract it  through  all  eternity,  for  the  insignificant 
reason  that  man  was  a  free  agent.  The  penalty, 
we  may  at  once  perceive,  may  be  more  or  less,  at 
pleasure,  entirely  irrespective  of  any  consideration 
of  human  agency.  Whoever  denies  this,  must 
take  it  upon  himself  to  prove  that  omnipotence  and 


UN1VERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.  17 

I 

omniscience  combined  could  not  leave  a  man  free 
to  incur,  by  disobedience,  a  punishment  of  one 
year,  or  a  thousand  years,  or  any  limited  time, 
however  great  and  awful  ;  but  freedom  of  will 
consists  solely  in  being  able  to  incur  an  endless 
penalty,  —  to  ruin  himself  forever ! 

We  see,  then,  that  we  are  clear  from  this  argu- 
ment. It  is  altogether  useless  to  resort  to  the  mat- 
ter of  free  agency,  to  shut  up  the  way  to  an  argu- 
ment from  the  nature  of  the  Deity,  against  the 
doctrine  of  interminable  punishment,  For  the  free 
agency  of  man,  and  the  endless  punishment  of 
man,  are  two  things  no  more  necessarily  connected 
than  the  Koran  of  Mohammed  and  the  Christian's 
Bible,  However  precious,  then,  this  sentiment 
may  be,  we  proceed  in  our  argument  without 
touching  it.  And  we  may  prove  the  doctrine  of 
endless  punishment  false,  leaving  the  dear  senti- 
ment of  Arminian  liberty  in  an  undisturbed  repose. 

We  begin  with  the  proposition  that  the  doctrine 
of  endless  punishment  is  contrary  to  all  the  attri- 
butes of  God.  But,  when  we  make  this  statement, 
we  have  not  an  exclusive  reference  to  Calvinism 
or  Arminianism,  but  a  combined  reference  to  both. 
It  is  indeed  confessed  that,  in  the  system  of  Cal- 
vinism, the  doctrine  in  question  may  be  consistent 
with  the  power  and  the  knowledge  of  the  Deity ; 
but  these  are  the  only  two  attributes  with  which  it 
is  reconcilable ;  while,  in  the  Arminian  system,  it 
is  opposed  to  every  attribute  of  God.  These  attri- 


18  UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

butes  are  seven  ;  or,  at  least,  these  may  be  consid- 
ered the  "  seven  spirits  of  God,"  mentioned  in  the 
book  of  Revelation,  and  to  comprise  all  the  com- 
municable attributes  of  Deity,  viz.  wisdom,  power, 
justice,  knowledge,  mercy,  love,  and  truth. 

I.  We  begin  with  the  attribute  of  wisdom.  The 
doctrine  of  endless  punishment,  both  in  the  Calvin- 
istic  and  Arminian  systems,  is  glaringly  opposed  to 
this  perfection  of  the  Infinite.  Let  us  ask,  what 
object  had  the  God  of  Calvinism  in  view,  in  the 
foreordination  of  the  reprobate  part  of  the  creation 
to  the  torments  of  eternity  ?  The  "  Confession  of 
Faith  "  shall  answer.  "  By  the  decree  of  God,  for 
the  manifestation  of  his  glory,  some  men  are  pre- 
destinated unto  everlasting  life,  and  others  foreor- 
dained to  everlasting  death."  Then  it  appears 
that  it  was  for  the  manifestation  of  God's  glory, 
that  this  decree  went  forth  from  the  Eternal.  And 
now  the  only  question  to  be  settled  is,  whether  this 
object  is  accomplished,  or  whether  the  glory  of 
God  is  thus  magnified.  Be  it  questioned,  in  the 
first  place,  if  the  happiness  of  the  elect  was  foreor- 
dained for  the  glory  of  God,  how  could  the  ever- 
lasting torments  of  the  reprobates  be  foreordained 
for  the  same  purpose  ?  that  is,  how  can  two  things 
as  opposite  as  light  and  darkness,  how  can  abso- 
lute final  evil  and  absolute  final  good  both  and 
equally  redound  to  the  glory  of  a  Being  who  is 
admitted,  on  all  hands,  to  be  goodness  alone  in  his 
nature,  wholly  opoosed  to  all  evil,  and  wholly  in- 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.  19 

clined  to  all  good  ?  This  question,  as  will  at  once 
be  perceived,  is  unanswerable.  And  it  is  not  only 
felt  to  be  so  by  us,  but  it  is  felt  to  be  so  by  the 
very  persons  who  have  espoused  this  doctrine. 
And,  accordingly,  they  have  resolved  the  matter 
into  this,  —  that  the  absolute,  final  evil  of  the  rep- 
robates does  not,  in  itself  considered,  redound  to 
the  glory  of  the  good  Creator ;  but  that  their  mise- 
ry is  made  to  result  in  good,  not  to  themselves 
indeed,  but  to  the  whole  universe  taken  together. 
It  has  been  sagely  affirmed,  that  the  endless  dam- 
nation of  a  part  will  conduce,  and  is  essential,  to 
the  greatest  good  of  the  whole.  We  will  not  here 
ask  how ;  we  will  content  ourselves  with  showing 
that  the  supposition  is  a  palpable  absurdity ;  though 
it  is  one  which  the  system  in  question  is  driven  to, 
to  maintain  the  appearance  of  benevolence.  "  The 
greatest  good  of  the  universe,  of  the  whole,  is  what 
it  professes  to  speak  of,  at  the  same  time  that  it 
excludes  a  part  of  the  universe,  a  part  of  the 
whole,  from  all  share  in  that  good  ;  for  it  does  not 
pretend  that  the  reprobated  portion  is  benefited 
by  the  arrangement.  Accordingly,  what  is  here 
called  the  universe,  or  the  whole,  does  not  embrace 
the  excluded  part ;  in  other  words,  it  is  not  the 
universe,  it  is  not  the  whole,  but  a  part  only,  though 
perhaps  by  far  the  greatest  part.  And  the  hypoth- 
esis is,  in  reality,  this, —  that  the  good  of  the  uni- 
verse, or  of  the  whole,  is  impossible  ;  and  that  the 
greatest  good  which  is  attainable  in  the  divine 


20  UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

economy  is  but  partial^  and  connected  with  absolute 
evil."  * 

It  is  a  point  established,  then,  that  the  divine 
wisdom,  in  the  light  even  of  the  Calvinistic  system, 
is  utterly  opposed  to  the  endless  punishment  of 
man.  For  its  design  was  to  impart  the  greatest 
amount  of  happiness  to  mankind  at  large,  which  it 
does  not  do ;  and  even  the  attempt  to  make  this 
benevolence  appear  involves  the  absurdity  that  the 
whole  excludes  a  part;  This  is  partialism  of  the 
very  first  order. 

If  we  now  look  at  the  other  system,  which  is 
more  generally  advocated,  the  same  want  of  wis- 
dom is  manifest,  and  even  worse  difficulties  pre- 
sented. This  system  boasts  of  benevolence  and 
harmony*  It  claims  the  honor  of  exculpating  the 
Deity  from  the  foul  charge  which  Calvinism  would 
fix  upon  him,  and  of  making  the  final  misery  of 
man  the  result  of  his  own  imprudence.  It  chimes 
with  Calvinism,  however,  in  admitting  that  the 
design  of  the  Creator  was  to  impart  happiness  to 
moral  beings.  This  design  is  all  we  want.  It  is 
an  invulnerable  point  with  us,  that  the  grand  de- 
signs of  Deity,  with  reference  to  the  ends  of  his 
government,  must  be  accomplished.  Let  us  see 
what  thing  this  is  that  will  oppose  them.  It  is  the 
free  will  of  man !  But  did  not  God's  design  take 

*  Expositor  and  Universalist  Review^  vol.  ii.  new  series^ 
p.  14 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTI ALISM.  21 

in  that  matter  ?  Did  he  design  to  save,  and  yet 
make  no  provision,  no  successful  provision,  for  the 
difficulties  ?  Can  difficulties  exist  with  God  ?  Is 
the  will  of  man  a  thing  unconquerable  with  him  ? 
True,  he  may  not  force  the  creature.  But  may  he 
not  turn,  and  influence,  and  attract,  and  bring  into 
a  willing  subjection  ?  My  friends,  there  never  was 
a  sinner  saved  yet,  without  an  influence  from  ex- 
terior motives  on  the  human  will.  There  never 
will  be  a  sinner  converted,  but  by  a  subjugation 
of  his  untoward  will.  Arid  God,  who  is  mighty  in 
goodness,  may  yet  ply  and  influence  the  heart  of 
man  by  the  force  of  motives  which  will  not  be  re* 
sisted.  But,  again,  was  it  wisdom  to  set  about  a 
work  and  use  the  very  means  which  were  seen 
would  defeat  it?  Did  not  the  Almighty  know, 
when  he  called  up  man  from  nothing's  strange 
abode,  and  gave  him  a  multitude  of  faculties  for 
his  future  progress  and  moral  elevation,  —  did  he 
not  know,  when  he  did  all  this,  and  then  when  he 
added  another  power,  the  power  of  free  will,  that 
this  would  be  the  very  one,  among  all  the  rest, 
which  would  defeat  his  object,  and  procure  the 
endless  ruin  of  the  creature  ?  Did  he  not  know  it  ? 
Answer  me  this,  and  tell  me, —  was  it  wisdom  in  the 
Deity  thus  to  set  about  to  defeat  his  own  design  ? 

"  But,"  says  an  objector,  "  there  was  one  point 

in   the  plan  of  the  Omniscient,  that  could  not  be 

given  up  or  changed  :  that  is  the  very  point  which 

presents  the  difficulty  in  question/'     Did  not  God 

3 


22  I7N1VERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

know  it  ?  Did  he  voluntarily  involve  himself  in 
an  insurmountable  difficulty  ?  But  we  have  shown 
that  man  might  be  free,  free  as  the  Lord  could 
make  him,  and  yet  endless  punishment  be  as  false 
as  man  was  free.  It  does  not  follow,  from  the  fact 
that  man  must  be  free,  that  he  cannot  be  left  free 
to  incur,  by  disobedience,  a  limited  penalty.  In 
other  words,  it  is  not  true  that  man  must  be  left 
free  to  bring  an  endless  curse  upon  himself,  or  else 
he  cannot  be  made  free  at  all. 

Open,  if  you  please,  the  depths  of  eternity  itself. 
Transport  the  sinner  beyond  the  shores  of  time. 
Leave  him  his  freedom,  and  look  upon  your  sys- 
tem then.  Will  endless  rebellion  and  endless  pun- 
ishment be  the  portion  of  a  free  agent  there  ? 
Will  the  very  fact  of  his  freedom  eternize  the 
transgression  and  the  suffering  ?  Rather  the  re- 
verse ;  for  time  far  short  of  eternity  would  turn 
the  sinner  to  the  way  of  wisdom,  which  is  peace. 
Look,  then,  ye  free  will  advocates  of  endless  wo, 
look  at  your  system  stripped  of  its  disguise.  The 
decree  of  God,  if  not  in  favor  of  introducing  the 
sinner  into  that  world  of  misery,  does,  according  to 
your  theory,  perpetuate  the  misery,  after  the  crea- 
ture has  got  there  by  the  abuse  of  his  free  will. 
Can  ye  say,  then,  that  God  desires  the  well-being 
of  them  all  ?  Talk  not  of  justice  here  :  this  shall 
be  noticed  in  its  place.  Consider  the  wisdom  of 
the  Deity.  You  say  he  desires  and  designs  the 
happiness  of  all,  but  he  has  given,  in  wisdom,  free 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.  23 

will  to  the  creature  ;  but  even  this  does  not  prevent 
the  accomplishment  of  the  object  in  time  far  short 
of  eternity,  and  yet  the  object  is  not  accomplished  ! 
We  would  have  this  matter  understood.  We  be- 
lieve it  has  been  almost  wholly  overlooked.  It  is 
always  supposed,  by  the  advocates  of  the  exalted 
system  of  free-will-endless-misery,  that  God  is  ex- 
culpated from  the  charge  of  bringing  this  misery 
on  mankind  himself,  and  that  no  one  is  to  blame 
but  the  creature  who  has  so  foolishly  abused  his 
privileges.  And  the  sound  has  gone  out,  and  the 
sound  only,  that  it  is  not  the  decree  of  God,  but 
the  foolishness  of  man,  that  brings  this  misery 
upon  him.  But,  in  consideration  of  the  fact  that 
free  agency  and  endless  punishment  are  not  neces- 
sarily connected,  I  wish  to  know  what  prolongs  the 
misery  to  all  eternity  ?  What,  in  the  name  of 
reason,  but  the  DECREE  OF  GOD,  who  employs  his 
almighty  power  to  keep  up  this  suffering  beyond 
the  time  which,  without  any  violation  of  human 
agency,  might  produce  a  true  and  thorough  ref- 
ormation ?  It  was  not,  according  to  this  system, 
an  awful,  unconditional  decree  which  placed  those 
sufferers  in  misery  at  first ;  but  it  is,  to  make  the 
best  of  it,  an  awful,  unconditional  decree  which 
keeps  them  there,  for  no  good  purpose  under 
heaven.  And,  rail  as  much  as  you  will  against 
the  horrible  decrees  of  Calvinism,  talk  as  much  as 
you  will  of  the  desire  of  God  to  effect  the  salvation 
of  all  his  creatures ;  it  is  your  decree,  without  that 


24  UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

desire  —  yes,  it  flashes  upon  our  minds  like  day- 
light  —  it  is  this  which  casts  a  stigma  on  the 
character  of  God,  after  all  is  said,  and  obscures  the 
lustre  of  his  wisdom.  Wisdom  is  outraged  ;  and, 
with  either  system,  we  must  figure  in  our  minds  a 
God  who  desires  and  contrives  for  the  greatest 
good  of  the  universe,  but  who  either  could  not  see 
that  the  entire  misery  of  a  part  was  inconsistent 
with  the  good  of  all,  or  who  cannot,  or  else  will 
not,  devise  means  to  overrule  a  punishment  for 
good,  after  it  may  have  accomplished  a  beneficial 
purpose. 

If  it  is  said  that  the  Deity  could  devise  such 
means,  did  justice  permit,  but  that  he  cannot,  con- 
sistently with  justice,  this  involves  the  attribute  of 
power. 

II.  The  doctrine  of  endless  punishment,  then,  is 
opposed  to  the  attribute  of  power.  It  is  not,  we 
confess,  in  the  Calvinistic  system.  Here  we  recog- 
nize omnipotent  power.  And  there  you  behold  it 
in  the  tremendous  operation  of  creating,  saving, 
and  damning  millions  of  immortal  creatures,  ac- 
cording to  the  dictates,  or  the  caprice,  of  unjust, 
unguided,  arbitrary  sovereignty,  —  a  power  which, 
even  if  admitted  to  be  infinite,  reflects  no  honor  on 
the  Deity,  but  is  the  vilest  imaginable  imperfection. 

It  is,  however,  in  the  Arminian  system,  that  the 
doctrine  in  question  is  opposed  to  the  power  of  the 
Almighty.  This  system  does  indeed  allow  the 
Deity  to  be  almighty  in  physical  force.  In  the 


TJNIVERSAL1SM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.  25 

heavens,  among  the  orbs  of  immensity,  far,  far 
beyond  this  nether  world, 

"  Where  other  systems  circle  other  suns, 
And  worlds  on  worlds  compose  one  universe," 

it  does  indeed  recognize  the  power  of  God  walking 
in  greatness  among  the  wonders  of  space  intermin- 
able, and  wheeling  through  infinity  the  ponderous 
orbs  of  light.  But,  for  a  perfect  Deity,  something 
more  is  wanted  than  mere  physical  strength,  how- 
ever overpowering  or  gigantic.  And  while  this 
system,  in  common  with  all  others,  ascribes  such 
perfection  to  the  Holy  One,  it  limits  him  fn  moral 
power,  on  which  depends  the  whole  efficiency  of 
the  plan  of  our  redemption.  It  is  hero  that  we 
find  it  "wanting."  It  says,  virtually,  that  God 
cannot  accomplish  what  he  designed  to  do.  He 
cannot,  for  he  has  given  man  a  free  will  which 
God  cannot  control !  Yea,  even  against  his  own 
desires  for  the  salvation  of  the  world,  and  against 
his  plan  for  the  accomplishment  thereof,  he  has 
made  man  the  strongest,  and  God's  power  is 
baffled  in  the  conflict !  Say  not  that  he  cannot 
force.  We  tell  you  that  he  cannot  draw,  influence, 
or  attract ,  in  a  willing  or  consenting  mind.  You 
say  he  designed  so  to  do,  and  yet  he  does  not.  It 
must  be,  then,  either  because  he  will  not,  or  be- 
cause he  can  not.  You  will  not  admit  the  former ; 
you  must,  then,  acknowledge  the  latter.  The  will 
of  man  is  thus  made  an  obstacle  which  God  cannot 
3* 


26  UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM, 

overcome.  And  yet  God  gave  the  will,  knowing 
the  perversity  with  which  it  would  oppose  him, 
Did  he,  then,  design  to  do  that  which  he  knew  he 
could  not  ?  Did  he  thus  clothe  man  with  a  power 
greater  than  his  own  ?  We  say,  your  theory  in* 
volves  this  absurdity :  that  God,  in  the  creation 
of  man,  designed  to  exalt  him  in  glory  and  honor, 
but  gave  him  a  power  which  made  the  accom- 
plishment of  this  design  impossible.  It  is  not 
omnipotence  to  'be  unable  to  do  that  which  is  de- 
sired. But  if  your  system  is  true,  God  has  estab- 
lished a  government  which  requires  what  he  cannot 
desire,  — the  infliction  of  endless  pain;  which  de- 
mands a  full  satisfaction  for  all  requirements,  by 
which  his  power  is  crippled  in  effecting  what  he 
desires,  —  the  salvation  of  the  world  !  O  ye  who 
love  simplicity,  what  shibboleth  is  this ! 

III.  But  I  know  it  will  be  said  that  justice  must 
be  executed ;  that  Jehovah  cannot  strip  himself  of 
one  of  his  perfections  out  of  tenderness  to  his  guilty 
creature,  man ;  that  come  it  must,  upon  the  heads 
of  the  ungodly,  all  the  punishment  of  an  outraged, 
violated  law. 

But  I  trust  we  need  not  spend  time  to  show  that 
Calvinism  is  opposed  to  the  justice  of  God.  Its 
unequivocal  declaration  is,  that  those  elected  to 
everlasting  life  are  thus  secured  "out  of  his  mere 
free  grace  and  love,  without  any  foresight  of  faith 
or  good  works,  or  any  other  thing  in  the  creature, 
as  conditions  or  causes  moving  him  thereto"  And 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST 

those  reprobated  are  made  so  b^va^pree  ocpially 
unconditional,   arbitrary,   and  un]iis^^./riie   rnos$  »^ 
cruel  tyrant  that  ever  disgraced  the  earmoll  wli'ldf 
he  trod  would  be  infinitely  humane  and  merciful, 
compared  with  this  outrageous  conception  of  the 
Deity.     But,  after  all,  the  existence  of  such  a  sys- 
tem is  not  so  great  a  wonder  as  that  men  of  sense 
and  virtue  have  so  long  believed  it.     We  dismiss 
it,  as  unworthy  a  more  patient  argument. 

Take,  now,  the  system  of  Arminian  partialism. 
Its  benevolent  offers  are  all  worth  nothing,  if  the 
punishment  it  inflicts  for  the  rejection  of  them  can 
be  proved  to  be  unjust.  Let  the  question,  then,  be 
fairly  stated  :  Is  the  penalty  in  question  opposed  to 
the  attribute  of  justice,  even  though  it  may  be 
sometimes  escaped  ? 

Here,  then,  we  have  an  opportunity  of  looking 
into  the  nature  of  that  attribute  which  is  so  fre- 
quently held  out  as  opposed  to  the  mercy  of  Jeho- 
vah, and  which,  alone,  must  seal  the  endless  con- 
demnation of  the  sinner.  Let  us  see  if  the  doctrine 
of  endless  punishment  is  not  opposed  to  this  dis- 
tinguished attribute  of  Deity.  We  are  frequently 
accused  of  magnifying  the  goodness,  the  mercy, 
and  the  love  of  the  Creator ;  these,  it  is  said,  are 
our  darling  attributes,  on  which  we  delight  to  ex- 
patiate, and  to  build  the  lovely  visions  of  a  world 
regenerated  into  purity  and  bliss,  but  to  the  woful 
neglect  of  that  justice  which  calls  aloud  for  satis- 
faction. But  we  plead  not  guilty  to  this  accusation. 


28  UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

We  affirm,  and  it  is  one  of  our  strongest  proposi- 
tions, that  not  only  the  goodness,  or  mercy,  but 
the  justice  of  Jehovah,  is  against  the  idea  of  un- 
ceasing punishment. 

With  regard  to  this  attribute,  let  us  first  inquire 
into  the  object  in  view  in  the  administration  of 
justice,  and  then  the  degree  of  punishment  which 
that  justice  requires.  If  different  sects  dispute 
about  the  objects  of  administering  justice,  we  pre- 
sume that  all  will  agree,  at  least,  in  one  particular, 
—  that  one  object  in  view  is,  the  reformation  of  the 
offender.  Whether  this  is  the  sole  object,  we  shall 
not  here  stop  to  inquire.  It  is  enough  for  our 
purpose  that  this  is  one  object  in  view,  in  the 
administration  of  justice.  For  confirmation  of  this, 
we  have  the  express  testimony  of  holy  writ.  We 
are  positively  assured,  that  while  no  chastening  for 
the  present  seemeth  to  be  joyous,  but  grievous,  it 
"  afterwards  yieldeth  the  peaceable  fruit  of  right" 
eousness  to  those  ivlw  are  exercised  thereby."  (Heb. 
xii.  11.)  This  language  requires  no  comment  from 
us.  If  it  is  said  that  this  has  reference  only  to  the 
chastenings  of  time,  and  not  to  those  of  eternity,  we 
answer,  if  it  is  an  indispensable  part  of  justice  in 
this  world  to  punish  with  a  view  to  a  man's  ref- 
ormation, can  it  be  dispensed  with  in  the  world  to 
come  ?  Is  justice  here  something  different  from 
what  it  is  hereafter  ?  Is  the  nature  of  this  attribute 
changeable  ?  I  conclude  that,  if  it  is  unjust  to 
punish  a  man  in  this  world  without  any  reference 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM.  29 

to  his  future  reformation,  it  is  unjust  in  the  world 
to  come.  I  think  that  justice,  being  an  unchangea- 
ble principle  of  an  unchangeable  God,  has  always 
an  unchangeable  end  in  view.  And  I  call  for 
proof,  that  what  is  unjust  here  will  be  just  hereafter. 
In  short,  I  call  for  proof,  that  justice  has  no  fixed, 
unvarying  object  in  view  ;  that  it  is  sometimes  one 
thing  and  sometimes  another,  and  that  God  can 
pursue  one  course  of  conduct  and  be  just,  and  then 
exactly  the  reverse,  and  be  also  just. 

One  object  of  justice,  then,  both  in  time  and 
eternity,  if  punishments  are  there  inflicted,  is  the 
reformation  of  the  offender.  This  must  bo  admit- 
ted, if  the  principle  of  justice  is  unchangeable.  If 
this  icill  not  be  admitted,  we  would  remark,  that  a 
penal  evil  which  is  not  for  the  good  of  the  offender, 
is  not  punishment,  but  revenge.  It  is  rendering 
evil  for  evil.  It  is  the  very  spirit  of  the  law  ;  there 
is  no  gospel  in  it.  But  without  insisting  upon  this 
distinction,  wo  would  appeal  to  the  common  sense 
of  men  ;  we  would  rest  our  argument  on  all  our 
conceptions  of  right.  It  is  a  question  put  by  the 
ancient  patriarch, —  "  Shall  not  the  Judge  of  all  the 
earth  do  right  ?  "  Now,  is  it  right  to  inflict  a 
tremendous  weight  of  misery  on  mankind  ;  to  pro- 
tract it  through  ages  and  ages,  and  for  a  whole 
eternity,  for  no  good  purpose  under  heaven  ?  Is  it 
right  thus  to  torment  a  creature,  rebellious  though 
he  may  have  been,  —  for  what  ?  and  echo  an- 
swers, for  what  ?  Should  a  person  be  found  ap- 


30  UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

plying  the  lash  to  another  with  unmitigated  severity, 
and,  on  being  questioned  as  to  the  object  he  had  in 
view  by  such  procedure,  should  reply,  he  had  no 
good  object,  what  should  we  call  such  a  punish- 
ment, or  what  name  should  we  apply  to  such  un- 
profitable suffering  ?  Should  we  call  the  person 
good  or  just,  or  the  misery  punishment?  No,  my 
friends,  the  individual  would  be  branded  as  a  cruel 
tyrant,  without  one  spark  of  goodness  or  justice  in 
him,  and  the  misery  he  was  causing,  produced  for 
the  purpose  of  glutting  a  vindictive  and  revenge- 
ful spirit,  or  else  for  no  assignable  purpose  under 
heaven.  And  what  shall  we  say,  when  the  same 
conduct,  only  infinitely  worse,  is  ascribed  to  the 
Creator  and  Governor  of  the  universe  ?  O  !  we 
need  not  confine  ourselves  to  goodness,  to  love,  or 
mercy,  or  any  other  principle  of  relenting  or  ten- 
derness whatever  in  the  Deity,  to  ground  an  argu- 
ment against  the  idea  of  endless  punishment ;  only 
give  us  justice,  assure  us  that  this  attribute  exists 
among  the  perfections  of  the  Godhead,  and  around 
this  we  will  build  our  hopes,  our  expectations,  and 
our  arguments,  for  the  eventual  well-being  of  the 
whole  family  of  man. 

But,  again,  look  at  the  subject  in  another  light. 
Imagine  the  time  before  the  sovereign  word  went 
forth  to  usher  into  being  a  race  of  intelligent 
creatures.  Look  at  the  Deity  before  the  creation 
of  man,  existing  in  his  own  self-sufficiency,  wanting 
nothing  to  augment  his  happiness,  revolving  in  his 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.  31 

mind  a  plan  for  introducing  millions  and  millions 
of  rational  creatures  into  an  existence  which  he 
knows  will  prove  an  everlasting  curse  to  them  ! 
Here,  no  sin  can  be  taken  into  the  account,  for 
man  had  not  existed.  Man  was  in  peaceful  non- 
entity. Nothing,  absolutely  nothing,  can  here  be 
brought  in  the  shape  of  a  rational  argument  against 
us.  For  nothing  existed  on  the  part  of  man,  and 
nothing  but  the  arbitrary  will  of  Deity  on  his 
part.  Now,  justice  puts  forth  her  claims.  Justice 
cries  aloud  for  some  assignable  reason  for  such  an 
act  of  creative  power.  As  the  Deity  created  all 
things  from  nothing,  or  was  under  no  obligation  to 
give  existence  unto  man,  but  still  did,  of  his  own 
sovereign  will  and  pleasure,  in  justice,  we  say,  he 
seems  compelled  to  render  that  existence,  on  the 
whole,  a  blessing.  The  consideration  of  man's 
free  agency  weighs  here  not  one  feather  in  the 
scale.  Free  agency  did  not  exist  before  the  crea- 
ture who,  it  is  said,  possesses  it.  The  state  of  the 
matter  in  brief  is  this  :  nothing  existed,  and  out  of 
nothing  the  Deity  produced  an  endless  curse  !  O, 
would  it  not  have  been  an  act  of  mercy  not  to  have 
animated  lifeless  dust,  rather  than  to  do  it,  in  full 
view  of  the  tremendous  and  unutterable  conse- 
quences which  it  is  said  will  result  from  it  ?  Talk 
not,  I  say,  of  free  agency.  God,  you  say,  gave  the 
agency,  knowing,  at  the  time  he  gave  it,  that  it 
would  prove  the  instrument  of  the  creature's  ruin. 
Why,  then,  did  he  give  it  ?  Or,  at  least,  why  did 


32  UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

he  create  that  part  of  mankind  whom  he  knew 
would  abuse  their  agency  to  their  endless  sorrow  ? 
We  can  here  feel  the  justness  of  the  plea  so  affect- 
ingly  set  forth  by  the  poet : 

"  Father  of  mercies  !  why  from  silent  earth 
Didst  thou  awake  and  curse  me  into  birth? 
Tear  me  from  quiet,  ravish  me  from  night  % 
And  make  a  thankless  present  of  thy  light  1 
Push  into  being  a  reverse  of  thee, 
And  animate  a  clod  with  misery  1 " 

We  conclude,  my  friends,  that  the  doctrine  of 
endless  punishment  is  in  opposition  to  the  justice 
of  Jehovah. 

But,  again,  we  are  to  determine  the  degree  of 
punishment  which  justice  of  right  requires.  And 
we  presume  that  all  will  agree  in  the  statement,- 
that  punishment  must  be  proportioned  to  the  crime.- 
We  are  exceedingly  happy  in  stating  that  in  this  all 
sects  in  Christendom  agree.  We  have,  then,  got 
one  starting  place  from  which  to  proceed,  in  hopes- 
of  condemning  the  opposer  in  the  very  thing  which 
he  alloweth.  Punishment  must  be  proportioned  to- 
the  crime,  or  else  it  is  manifestly  unjust.  Now, 
what  proportion  is  there  between  the  sins  of  time 
and  the  punishment  of  eternity  ?  We  may,  on  an 
average,  or  rather  to  the  furthest  general  extent? 
limit  all  sin  to  the  brief  space  of  three  score  years- 
and  ten.  For  this  short  space,  a  mere  point,  as  it 
were,  in  the  line  of  our  existence,  a  whole  eternity 
of  unutterable  pain  must  be  administered  !  Should 


DN1VERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.  33 

a  father  inflict  upon  a  disobedient  child  a  severe 
and  unrelenting  punishment  for  seventy  years,  for 
a  few  sins  committed  in  the  days  of  childhood,  he 
would  be  infinitely  more  just  than  God  is  repre- 
sented ;  for  there  is  a  proportion  between  a  few 
days  and  seventy  years,  but  there  is  none  between 
time  and  eternity. 

But  we  are  aware  this  argument  may  be  evaded. 
We  know  that  another  thing  is  resorted  to,  to  prove 
the  justness  of  interminable  punishment ;  and  that 
is,  the  infinite  and  holy  character  of  that  God 
against  whom  sin  is  committed.  In  other  words,  it 
is  said  that  sin  is  an  infinite  evil,  and  therefore 
deserves  an  infinite  punishment.  As  many  times 
as  we  have  had  occasion  to  combat  this  argument, 
we  have  no  objections  to  going  over  the  ground 
again,  in  hopes  that  conviction  may  be  fastened 
upon  some  mind,  and  the  cause  of  truth  be  pro- 
moted. Sin,  it  is  affirmed,  is  infinite,  and  there- 
fore justice  demands  an  infinite  punishment. 

To  attack  this  argument  in  its  fortress,  and  dis- 
lodge it  thence,  we  should  ask  immediately,  —  how 
is  it  known  that  sin  is  infinite  ?  The  answer  given 
is,  that  the  law  is  infinite,  therefore  the  trans- 
gression of  it  is.  But  this  is  not  going  far  back 
enough.  How  is  it  known  that  the  law  is  infinite  ? 
The  only  answer  is,  —  God  is  infinite  —  God  made 
the  law  —  therefore  the  law  is  infinite.  Therefore 
is  a  dangerous  word  to  use.  It  seems,  then,  that 
4 


&4  UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

the  whole  argument  for  the  infinite  nature  of  sin  is 
based  upon  the  simple  fact  of  the  infinity  of  God. 
God  is  infinite  —  God  made  the  law  —  therefore 
the  law  is  infinite,  and  therefore  the  transgression 
of  it  is.  Where  could  Tekel  be  more  appropriately 
written  than  on  such  an  argument  as  this  ?  It  can 
be  exploded  best  by  a  few  applications  of  it.  God 
made  a  mountain  —  God  is  infinite  —  therefore  the 
mountain  is  infinite.  God  made  a  man  —  God  is 
infinite  —  therefore  the  man  is  infinite  !  And  why, 
in  the  name  of  reason,  is  not  this  as  logical  a  con- 
clusion as  that  respecting  the  magnitude  of  sin  ? 
We  might  rest  here  in  the  conclusion  that  sin  is 
not  an  infinite  evil  because  committed  against  an 
infinite  God,  but  we  prefer  to  look  a  little  further, 
and  to  offer  a  few  reasons  why  sin,  in  its  nature, 
cannot  be  infinite. 

In  the  first  place,  we  might  ask  the  simple  ques- 
tion a  thousand  times  put,  if  man,  a  finite  cause, 
can  produce  an  infinite  effect. 

But,  again,  if  sin  is  infinite,  then  there  can  be  no 
degree  in  transgression.  When  speaking  of  infini- 
ties, it  is  absurd  to  talk  of  greater  or  less.  One 
infinite  thing  cannot  be  larger  than  another.  And 
so,  if  sin  is  infinite,  all  sins  are  of  equal  magnitude, 
and  the  most  trifling  transgression  is  as  flagrant  as 
the  blackest  crime,  which  is  an  absurdity. 

Again,  if  sin  is  infinite,  where  is  the  propriety 
of  this  language  of  the  apostle :  u  Where  sin 


TJNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.  35 

abounded  grace  did  much  more  abound  ?  "  But  is 
there  any  such  thing  as  any  thing  abounding  much 
more  than  infinite  ? 

Once  more  :  and  here  is  a  conclusive  argument, 
if  all  the  rest  are  worth  nothing.  If  sin  is  infinite, 
because  of  disobedience  to  an  infinite  law,  then 
virtue  is  infinite,  because  of  obedience  to  that  same 
infinite  law.  For  "  it  is  a  poor  rule  that  won't 
work  both  ways."  Accordingly,  a  man  may  be  an 
infinite  sinner,  and  an  infinite  saint,  at  the  same 
time ;  deserving,  at  once,  of  an  infinite  reward,  and 
an  infinite  punishment.  And  I  leave  such  a  being, 
subject  to  such  a  law,  for  the  disposal  of  wiser 
heads  than  mine,  and  better  initiated  into  the  mys- 
teries of  popular  divinity. 

Now,  the  question  returns  upon  us — and  we  deem 
it  a  hard  one  —  where  is  the  justice  of  God  in  inflict- 
ing an  infinite  punishment  for  a  finite  sin  ?  We 
rest  in  the  conclusion,  that  the  doctrine  of  endless 
and  infinite  punishment,  whether  we  regard  the 
object  of  justice  in  punishing,  or  the  magnitude 
of  sin,  is  plainly  opposed  to  the  justice  of  the 
Almighty. 

There  are  only  three  objections  which  can  be 
urged  against  the  justness  of  the  conclusion  to 
which  we  have  now  arrived. 

First,  it  is  contended  that,  in  spite  of  all  our 
reasonings,  the  Scriptures  assert  the  infinite  nature 
of  sin.  Does  not  the  inspired  penman  say,  (Job 
xxii.  5,)  "  Is  not  thy  wickedness  great  1  and  thine 


36  TJNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

INIQUITIES  INFINITE  r  "  Is  not  this  written  in  the 
Scriptures  ?  Yes ;  and  so  it  is  written  in  the 
Scriptures  concerning  Christ,  "  Behold  a  man 
gluttonous,  and  a  wine  bibber."  But  this  is  not  the 
language  of  truth.  It  came  from  the  enemies  of 
Christ.  So,  in  the  former  instance,  it  was  not  the 
declaration  of  God  that  iniquity  was  infinite.  It 
was  the  language  of  Job's  enemy.  It  was  Eliphaz 
the  Temanite  who  made  this  affirmation.  It  formed 
no  part  of  the  oracles  of  truth,  but  was,  on  the 
contrary,  a  false  and  unjust  reproach  of  Job's 
character. 

Again,  if  this  language  proves  that  sin  is  infinite, 
then  we  can  prove  that  human  strength  is  infinite. 
For  it  is  written  in  the  book  of  Nahum  iii.  9,  con- 
cerning the  city  of  No,  "  Ethiopia  and  Egypt 
were  her  strength,  and  it  was  infinite."  But  can 
any  human  strength  be  absolutely  infinite,  unlimit- 
ed 1  The  passage  from  Job,  then,  proves  nothing 
to  the  purpose.  There  are  two  strong  arguments 
against  it.  In  the  first  place,  it  was  a  falsehood  of 
Eliphaz  the  Temanite ;  in  the  second  place,  the 
same  word  is  used  by  an  inspired  prophet,  and  ap- 
plied to  finite  nature. 

Secondly,  it  is  objected  that  we  argue  against 
what  no  one  contends  for,  and  that  we  leave  the 
doctrine  of  endless  punishment  untouched.  Our 
argument  has  been  this :  sin  is  not  infinite,  there- 
fore it  deserves  not  infinite  punishment.  But  we 
are  now  told  that  "  nobody  contends  for  infinite 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.  37 

punishment,  but  only  for  endless.  For  punishment 
to  be  absolutely  infinite,  two  infinities  would  be  re- 
quired, infinite  duration,  and  infinite  severity  or 
magnitude ;  whereas,  nobody  believes  this.  la 
spite  of  our  argument,  then,  against '  infinite '  pun- 
ishment, endless  punishment  remains  untouched 
and  true." 

We  should  not,  I  think,  have  noticed  this  meta- 
physical argument,  had  it  not  been  wielded  by  the 
gigantic,  metaphysical,  double-and-twisted  intellect 
of  Dr.  Jonathan  Edwards.  It  has  been  put  forth 
by  him,  and  the  doctor  talks  wisely  on  it.  "  Here 
you  see,"  says  the  doctor,  (I  give  his  argument, 
and  not  his  words,)  "  is  an  infinite  line,  infinite  in 
length ;  now,  here  is  an  infinite  superficies,  infinite 
in  length,  and  breadth ;  and  here,  now,  is  an  infinite 
solid,  infinite  in  length,  and  breadth,  and  thickness. 
So  you  see,  there  is  but  one  absolute  infinity,  after 
all ;  or,  rather,  infinities  may  be  of  an  infinite  dif- 
ference in  quantity,  according  to  the  nature  of  the 
object.  Now,  when  you  talk  of  infinite  punish- 
ment, you  overpass  the  mark.  You  argue  against 
what  nobody  contends  for.  Endless  punishment, 
is  not  infinite  punishment.  Despite  of  all  your 
argument,  then,  from  the  nature  of  sin,  against 
infinite  punishment,  endless  punishment  may  still 
be  true,  and  this  is  all  the  word  of  God  declares." 

Yea,  doctor,  but  what  does  all  this  mighty  rea- 
soning prove  ?  In  the  first  place,  it  only  makes  you 
more  inconsistent.  For  you  still  hold  to  the  infinite 
4* 


«5»  UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

nature  of  sin.  If  sin  is  infinite,  then,  it  deserves  in- 
finite punishment.  And  yet  you  only  teach  end- 
less consequences !  Be  careful,  else  thine  own 
trap  will  ensnare  thee.  I  call  on  all  who  hold 
to  the  infinite  nature  of  sin  to  advocate,  in  justness, 
infinite  punishment,  infinite  in  severity  and  dura- 
tion. Else  do  not  accuse  us  of  denying  the  justice 
of  God.  Then  your  doctrine  will  be  more  mon- 
strous, and,  if  possible,  more  worthy  of  the  devil 
than  it  now  is.  Be  consistent,  now ;  either  give  up 
infinite  sin,  or  else  hold  to  what  your  conscience 
and  your  better  feelings  revolt  at,  —  punishment 
infinite  in  magnitude,  and  endless  in  duration. 

In  the  next  place,  let  us  inquire  how  the  argu- 
ment affects  us.  Let  it  be  observed,  then,  that  it 
does  not  disprove  the  finite  nature  of  sin.  On 
the  contrary,  it  rather  establishes  it,  and  dis- 
proves its  infinity.  For  if  sin  does  not  meet  with 
absolute  infinite  punishment,  it  cannot  be  that  God 
views  it  an  infinite  evil.  So  that,  admitting  the 
argument  all  its  force,  it  confirms  rather  than 
destroys  our  views  of  the  finite  nature  of  sin. 

Again,  how  does  it  affect  the  doctrine  of  endless 
punishment  ?  Does  it  prove  it  true  ?  No ;  for 
although  finite  sin  (finite,  as  we  have  proved)  dis- 
proves infinite  punishment,  yet  it  does  not  at  the 
same  time  prove  endless  (finite  ?)  punishment. 
Who  can  say  that,  because  infinite  punishment 
cannot  be  inflicted  for  finite  sin,  yet  endless  punish- 
ment must  be  ?  This  would  be  jumping  at  conclu- 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PAHTIALISM.  39 

sions  indeed.  Therefore,  all  the  argument  proves 
is,  that  infinite  punishment  is  not  true ;  but  that 
endless  punishment  is,  is  the  very  point  remaining 
yet  unproved. 

But,  to  quit  the  labyrinth  of  metaphysics,  if  abso- 
lute infinite  punishment,  in  degree  and  duration,  is 
not  believed,  why  do  we  hear  so  much  of  the 
word  in  the  preaching  and  writing  of  the  partialist 
clergy  ? 

Again,  do  not  their  common  representations  of 
the  torments  of  the  damned  —  sometimes  terrific 
beyond  all  description  —  countenance  the  idea  of 
unimaginable  punishment  in  degree  as  well  as  du- 
ration ?  And  if  it  is  not  absolutely  infinite,  is  it 
not  represented  so  unutterably  horrific  as  to  give 
the  argument  an  overwhelming  force  against  the 
justice  of  such  a  punishment,  protracted  through 
the  ages  of  eternity,  for  the  sins  of  a  few  years  this 
side  the  grave  ?  Here,  then,  we  rest.  Metaphys- 
ics do  not  affright  us.  Our  faith  remains  un- 
harmed. Infinite  punishment,  or  endless  punish- 
ment, we  care  not  which  —  the  latter  is  infinite  in 
one  sense  —  must  ever  be  repelled  when  it  looks 
the  Bible  or  sound  reason  in  the  face. 

Thirdly,  it  is  objected  that  we  misapprehend  the 
subject ;  that  it  is  not  contended  that  endless  pun- 
ishment is  inflicted  for  the  sins  of  this  life  alone, 
but  that  those  who  die  impenitent  will  continue  to 
sin  throughout  eternity,  and  "  eternal  punishment," 


40  UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

as  Dr.  Beecher  says,  "  will  tread  upon  the  heels  of 
eternal  transgression." 

In  reply  to  this  we  remark,  in  the  first  place, 
that  this  is  neither  the  common  representation  of 
the  subject,  nor  is  it  the  idea  attached  to  those 
scriptures  which  are  usually  made  use  of  to  estab- 
lish the  doctrine  in  question.  It  is  not  the  common 
representation  of  the  subject ;  for  we  do  not  hear, 
generally,  when  this  doctrine  is  advanced,  that 
endless  punishment  is  the  consequence  of  endless 
sinning;  that  men  will  go  away  into  everlasting 
sin ;  that  God  will  inflict  upon  them  endless  trans- 
gression, &c.  No ;  it  is  endless  punishment  for 
the  sins,  the  unrepented  sins,  of  mortal  life.  This 
is  represented  as  the  state  of  probation ;  and  if  we 
do  not  improve  it,  then,  for  our  abuse  of  privileges 
here,  we  are  threatened  with  the  torments  of  eter- 
nity. I  say,  this  is  the  common  manner  of  repre- 
senting the  subject,  despite  of  all  attempts  to  shield 
themselves  from  inconsistency,  by  resorting  to  the 
hypothesis  of  endless  sin.  And  we  cannot  but 
view  the  hypothesis  in  question  as  a  necessary 
though  unscriptural  refuge,  to  rid  themselves  of  the 
charge  of  enormity  and  injustice  which  the  doctrine 
of  endless  punishment  for  the  sins  of  a  moment, 
as  it  were,  fixes,  deathlike,  upon  their  appalling 
theory. 

Again,   it  is   not  the  idea  conveyed   by  those 
scriptural  passages   which   are  usually   made  use 


TTNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM.  41 

of  to  establish  the  doctrine  in  question.  There  is 
nothing  in  the  Bible  which  speaks  of  endless  sin. 
On  the  contrary,  we  are  informed  that  the  Messiah 
shall  "  finish  sin,  make  an  end  of  transgression, 
and  bring  in  everlasting  righteousness."  We  re- 
peat, the  Bible  knows  nothing  about  endless  sin. 
The  phrase  is  as  unscriptual  as  mortal  virtue,  or 
temporary  immortality.  Yea,  the  Bible  and  the 
pulpit  too,  tell  us  that  we  are  to  receive  "  accord- 
ing to  that  we  have  done,  whether  it  be  good  or 
bad,"  not  according  to  that  we  shall  do  through- 
out eternity.  Away,  then,  with  the  unscriptural 
and  unreasonable  idea  of  endless  sin. 

We  remark,  in  the  second  place,  that,  admitting 
this  true,  it  does  not  vindicate  the  justice  of  the 
Deity  in  inflicting  endless  punishment.  It  only 
magnifies  the  evident  injustice  into  more  enormous 
injustice.  It  is  adding  Enormity  to  enormity.  In 
the  first  place,  it  should  be  observed,  that  the  argu- 
ment admits  at  once,  that  endless  punishment  is  an 
unjust  one  for  the  sins  of  this  life.  We  would 
have  this  point  remembered.  Be  it  known,  then, 
that  the  "  orthodox "  clergy  in  general  have  open- 
ly acknowledged  that  endless  punishment  for  the 
sins  of  this  life  is  a  most  flagrant,  and  enormous, 
and  infinite  act  of  injustice  !  All  this  comes  from 
the  argument  that  it  is  endless  sin,  and  not  the  sins 
of  time,  which  alone  vindicates  the  justice  of  the 
punishment. 

But  if  endless  punishment  for  the  sins  of  this 


42  UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

life  is  infinitely  unjust,  is  not  the  act  of  leaving  the 
sinner  to  go  on  in  crime  and  consequent  punish- 
ment through  all  eternity  equally  unjust  ?  Yea, 
and  vastly  more  so.  For,  when  once  a  punish- 
ment is  inflicted,  sufficient  for  the  sin  committed, 
why  leave  the  sinner  to  repeat  his  crimes  forever, 
when,  without  any  violation  of  his  agency,  he 
might,  as  has  been  fully  shown,  be  reclaimed  arid 
reinstated  ?  Can  any  answer  this  question  ?  We 
defy  the  world.  It  has  been  amply  demonstrated, 
that,  in  a  period  of  time  far  short  of  eternity,  when 
proper  punishment  is  administered,  and  proper 
motives  presented,  a  free  agent  might  turn  and 
live.  Yea,  he  might  and  would ;  and  justice 
stands  not  in  the  way,  seeing  it  is  frankly  admitted 
that  justice  does  not  ask  endless  punishment  for 
the  sins  of  this  life :  he  would,  then,  turn,  and  he 
would  be  reclaimed,  did  not  almighty  power,  for 
some  unimaginable  purpose,  exert  itself  to  continue 
the  poor  sinner  in  rebellion,  (O,  for  shame !)  for 
the  purpose  of  glutting  vindictive  vengeance  in  the 
infliction  of  overwhelming  pain  while  God  exists 
or  eternity  ceases  not.  My  God,  my  God !  how 
long  shall  these  things  last  ?  Open  thou  the  hearts 
and  the  understandings  of  thy  creatures,  that  they 
may  honor  thee,  and  extol  the  majesty  of  thy 
glory. 

Here,  then,  we  rest  the  argument  from  justice. 
We  regret  the  length  of  it ;  but  for  the  argument 
itself  we  offer  no  apology.  It  is  a  prominent  attri- 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.  43 

bute,  and  a  main  pillar,  if  not  the  only  one,  which 
supports  the  tottering  fabric  of  partialist  theology. 
But  we  are  satisfied  that  both  the  Calvinistic  and 
Arminian  theories,  involving,  as  they  do,  the  end- 
less punishment  of  man,  are  infinitely  at  variance 
with  the  eternal  justice  of  Jehovah. 

IV.  The  next  attribute  is  knowledge.  Is  Cal- 
vinism opposed  to  this  ?  No ;  and  we  are  now 
prepared  to  give  this  system  the  glory  due  unto 
its  name.  Calvinism  may  be  reconciled  with  the 
power  and  the  knowledge  of  the  Deity,  —  a  power, 
as  before  remarked,  in  the  tremendous  operation 
of  creating,  saving,  and  damning  millions  of  im- 
mortal, moral  beings,  according  to  the  dictates  or 
the  wild  caprice  of  awful,  unconditional,  unguided 
sovereignty  ;  and  a  knowledge  so  all-embracing 
and  infinite  as  to  know  precisely  the  unerring  fate 
of  all  mankind  before  .they  were  created  ;  the 
number  damned  being,  according  to  the  Confession 
of  Faith,  "  so  certain  that  it  can  neither  be  in- 
creased nor  diminished  !  "  What  an  awful,  what 
an  indescribably  awful,  system  of  divine  govern- 
ment !  Even  the  power  and  knowledge  of  the 
Deity,  which  this  system  alone  leaves  unlimited, 
reflect  thereby  no  honor  upon  the  Creator ;  for 
they  are  both  employed  in  beholding  and  executing 
evil !  "  O  my  soul,  come  not  thou  into  their  se- 
cret :  unto  their  assembly,  mine  honor,  be  not  thou 
united." 

But  it  is  with  reference  to  the  Arminian  theory, 


44  UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

that  the  knowledge  of  God  is  presented  in  a  strange 
light.  The  desire  and  the  design  of  God  are  here 
represented  to  be  the  final  happiness  of  all ;  and 
yet,  with  a  full  sight  of  the  prospective  damnation 
of  a  large  portion  of  his  creatures,  he  sets  in  opera- 
tion a  set  of  means  which  he  KNOWS  will  prove 
abortive,  and  secure  it !  Here  is  knowledge,  abso- 
lute and  perfect  knowledge,  hard  against  the  desire 
and  the  deliberate  design !  And,  indeed,  so  glaring 
is  this  consequence  of  the  theory  in  question,  that 
Dr.  Clarke  has  gone  so  far  as  to  question  outright 
that  God  lias  knowledge  of  all  things.  "  I  con- 
clude," says  the  doctor,  after  a  long  argument  on 
this  subject,  "  that  God,  although  omniscient,  is  not 
obliged,  (!)  in  consequence  of  this,  to  know  all  that 
he  can  know."  *  Pardon  the  comparison,  doctor  : 
although  I  am  a  boy  in  comparison  with  thee,  I 
conclude  that,  if  a  person  should  try  hard  to  re- 
member to  forget  a  thing,  he  would  exhibit  about 
as  much  wisdom  as  thoii  hast  exhibited  on  this 
point  to  us  thy  scholars.  And  here  shall  be  an 
end. 

While  on  this  subject,  we  cannot  refrain  from 
noticing  again  the  subject  of  endless  punishment  in 
connection  with  human  agency.  We  will  here 
allow  what  never  can  be  proved,  —  that  the  Crea- 
tor could  not  have  constituted  man  a  free  agent 
without  exposing  him  to  endless  ruin.  "  He  could 

*  Clarke's  note  on  Afcts  ii. 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.  45 

not,"  say  you,  u  have  made  moral  beings  without 
giving  them  an  agency  to  choose  the  good  and 
refuse  the  evil ;  and  the  evil,  in  justice,  required 
endless  punishment."  We  have  just  shown,  how- 
ever, that  it  does  not.  Still,  admit  that  it  does, — 
that  thus  the  agency  came  to  exist,  and  that  thus 
the  creature  was,  in  justice,  exposed  to  endless 
punishment;  yet,  still,  God  must  have  known  what 
portion  of  mankind  would  have  made  good  use  of, 
and  what  portion  would  have  abused,  their  agency. 
Now,  with  this  knowledge,  if  his  desire  was  for  the 
happiness  of  all,  why  did  he  not  leave  in  non- 
existence  that  part  of  mankind  whom  he  foreknew 
would  abuse  their  agency,  and  prevent  the  accom- 
plishment of  his  design  ?  This  he  was  at  perfect 
liberty  to  do.  He  knew,  to  an  individual,  how 
many,  and  who  they  were,  who  would  make  good 
use  of,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  how  many  and 
who  would  abuse,  their  agency.  And  had  those 
whom  he  foreknew  would  abuse  their  agency 
never  been  created,  then,  notwithstanding  the  ad- 
mitted justness  of  even  endless  punishment,  God 
would  have  satisfied  his  desires  and  accomplished 
his  design  in  the  salvation  of  the  whole  race ! 
But,  notwithstanding  the  Deity  foreknew  every 
individual  who  would  go  counter  to  his  desires,  yet 
he  brought  them  into  existence,  to  the  known  frus- 
tration of  his  designs.  We  say,  notwithstanding 
free  agency,  and  even  the  admitted  justness  of 
endless  punishment,  the  Creator  might  have  dis- 
5 


46  UNI  VERBALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

pensed  with  that  part  of  mankind  by  whom  alone 
the  punishment  would  have  been  rendered  neces- 
sary, and  by  whom  alone  his  desires  were  defeated. 
For  he  had  the  knowledge  that  would  have  ena- 
bled him  to  do  it.  Admit,  then,  that  man  is  a  free 
agent,  that  endless  punishment  is  just,  yet  that 
God's  desire  is  not  for  it,  and  yet  that  he  had  the 
knowledge  which,  in  perfect  CONSISTENCY  with  this 
agency  and  this  punishment,  would  have  enabled 
him  to  prevent  the  punishment,  and  how  is  this 
doctrine  opposed  to  the  attribute  of  knowledge ! 
It  looks  to  us  like  the  force  of  a  mathematical 
demonstration. 

V.  There  are  three  remaining  attributes,  —  mer- 
cy, love,  and  truth.  To  attempt  a  labored  argu- 
ment to  show  that  Calvinism  is  opposed  to  the 
mercy  of  Jehovah,  would  seem  like  laboring  to 
prove  a  truism.  There  is  no  mercy  in  it.  But 
stop  :  there  may  be  a  partial  mercy,  and  it  must 
bear  the  impression  of  partial-im. 

Is  there  any  mercy  in  the  Arminian  theory  ? 
To  do  our  brethren  justice,  we  must  notice  them. 
It  is  not  pretended  that  there  is  any  mercy  in  the 
actual  infliction  of  torment  through  eternity.  The 
mercy,  it  is  contended,  consists  in  the  offer  to 
escape  it.  To  this  it  is  replied  again,  God  knew, 
when  he  determined  to  offer,  who  would  accept 
and  who  would  reject  it.  It  would,  then,  have 
been  an  act  of  mercy  not  to  have  created  that  part 
of  mankind  whom  he  knew  would  reject  the  offer 


TTNIVEHSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.  47 

to  their  own  damnation.  As  it  is,  there  can  be  no 
mercy  in  it.  And  the  very  offer,  under  such  cir- 
cumstances, is  but  an  offering  of  hypocrisy. 

VI.  We  come  to  the  attribute  of  love.     Is  there 
any  love  in  Calvinism  ?    .There  is  the  love  of  par- 
tial ism,  but  the  love  of  God  is  not  in  it. 

Is  there  any  love  in  Arminianism  ?  Just  as 
much  love  as  there  is  in  its  offering  of  mercy. 

Again,  "Love  worketh  no  ill."  Arminianism 
works  an  infinite  ill.  Love  differs  from  mercy  in 
this :  mercy  regards  its  objects  when  in  danger 
or  suffering  ;  love  regards  its  objects  under  any 
circumstances  whatever,  and  is  ever  ready  to 
bestow  the  good.  Now  there  is  no  good  in 
endless  punishment.  It  cannot  be  overruled  for 
good  to  those  who  suffer  it ;  and  it  cannot  result  in 
good  to  the  universe,  taken  as  a  whole ;  for  we 
have  already  seen  the  absurdity  of  this.  It  is  an 
end,  and  not  a  means, — a  final  state  of  positive 
and  unmixed  evil.  To  talk  of  love  as  permitting 
an  endless  evil,  is  no  more  reasonable  than  to  talk 
of  hatred  as  permitting  an  endless  good.  We  can- 
not dwell  upon  the  subject.  It  must  be  that  par- 
tialism,  in  all  its  forms,  is  at  jarring  discord  with 
the  infinite,  universal  love  of  God.  Indeed,  with 
regard  to  this  attribute,  it  is  represented  as  the 
very  nature  of  the  Deity.  "  God  is  love ; "  in 
which,  we  conclude,  all  the  other  attributes  must 
harmonize. 

VII.  Lastly,  the  truth  of  God  remains   to   be 


48  UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PAHTIALISM. 

considered.  With  regard  to  this  attribute,  there 
are  some  practical  demonstrations,  wherein  it  may 
be  seen  that  Calvinism  most  unrighteously  opposes 
it.  How  often  and  how  long  have  its  advocates 
labored  to  make  those  passages  which  assert  that 
Christ  gave  himself  a  "  ransom  for  all,"  and 
"  tasted  death  for  every  man,"  mean  that  he  died 
for  all  the  elect  only,  according  to  this  contracted 
scheme  of  grace ! 

Arminianism-,  also,  is  guilty  of  the  same  opposi- 
tion. It  does,  indeed,  admit  that  Christ  died  for 
all ;  but  that  he  is  the  *'  Saviour  of  the  world," 
(1  John  iv.  14;)  that  he  "  will  draw  all  men  unto 
hirn,"  (John  xii.  32;)  that  uhe  must  reign  till  he 
hath  put  all  enemies  under  his  feet,  and  then  be 
subject  unto  God  in  the  same  way  that  all  are 
subjected  unto  him,"  (1  Cor.  xv,  28  ;)  * — these  are 
truths  which  no  partial  system  can  admit. 

Not  only  the  truth  itself,  but  its  influence,  is 
limited  by  this  and  all  other  systems  of  a  partial 
order.  Divine  truth  is  represented  as  one  of  the 
means  of  man's  salvation.  "  Sanctify  them  through 
thy  truth,"  says  the  Saviour.  "  Chosen  to  salva- 
tion through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  and  belief 
of  the  truth,"  says  an  apostle.  As,  therefore, 
divine  truth  is  one  of  the  means  of  gospel  salva- 
tion, and  its  influence  must  be  felt  before  men  are 
saved,  it  follows  that  those  partial  systems  which 
limit  salvation  limit  also  the  influence  of  God's 
truth ;  which,  he  declares  to  us,  "  shall  accomplish 


UNI  VERBALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM.  49 

that  which  he  pleaseth,  and  prosper  in  the  thing 
whereto  he  sent  it."    (Isa.  Iv.  11.) 

Thus  we  have  gone  through  with  these  two 
systems  of  evil.  The  doctrine  of  endless  punish- 
ment for  the  sins  of  this  life,  or  for  the  sins  of 
eternity,  when  presented  in  the  form  of  Calvinism, 
is  opposed  to  jive  of  the  attributes  of  God ;  and, 
when  presented  in  the  Arminian  theory,  is  at  war 
with  every  attribute  of  the  Eternal.  "  How  oft  did 
the  Israelites  provoke  him  in  the  wilderness,  and 
grieve  him  in  the  desert !  Yea,  they  turned  back, 
and  tempted  God,  and  limited  the  Holy  One  of 
Israel"  (Ps.  Ixxviii.  41.)  In  like  manner,  his  chil- 
dren of  the  present  day  set  bounds  to  his  infinity, 
and  prescribe  limits  to  the  sphere  of  his  dominion. 
Reader,  pause  and  reflect.  Consider  the  wisdom, 
power,  and  goodness  of  the  Deity,  and  say  whether 
his  desires  shall  not  be  accomplished,  or  whether  a 
system  which  denies  this  truth,  and  so  limits  the 
perfections  of  the  Infinite,  is  not  "  wanting "  the 
approval  of  thy  reason,  and  the  testimony  of  the 
word  of  truth. 


5* 


LECTURE   II. 

ARGUMENT     AGAINST     THE     DOCTRINE     OF     ENDLESS 
PUNISHMENT,    CONTINUE?. 

Thou  art  weighed  in  the  balances,  and  art  found  wanting. 

Daniel  v.  27. 

IN  our  last  lecture,  we  considered,  briefly,  the 
Attribute  of  divine  truth.  We  found  enough,  even 
in  that  argument,  to  disprove  the  doctrine  which 
professes  to  be  founded  on  it.  But  we  may  now 
look  more  particularly  to  the  records  of  that  truth, 
though  not  so  fully  as  in  a  future  lecture  for  the 
purpose,  where  the  Scriptures  will  be  especially 
appealed  to.  Our  present  argument  will  be 
grounded  on  some  prominent  features  of  divine 
truth,  together  with  certain  admissions  and  profesr 
sions  of  those  who  advocate  the  "  contrary  part." 

I.  The  doctrine  of  endless  punishment  is  no- 
where inculcated  in  the  LAW  of  God.  A  few  re? 
flections  will  convince  us  of  the  importance  of  this, 
pur  first  proposition.  Where,  my  friends,  shall 
we  look  for  the  threatening  of  unceasing  punishr 
ment,  if  not  in  connection  with  the  law  of  God  ? 
Where  could  we  expect  to  find  this  tremendous 
truth,  if  it  is  a  truth,  with  more  consistency  than 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTI ALISM.  51 

Ln  connection  with  that  law  which  was  given  amid 
ihunderings  and  lightnings,  as  an  appropriate  inti- 
mation of  its  terrific  character  ?  The  law  was  a 
"  ministration  of  condemnation  and  death."  u  By  the 
law,"  says  the  apostle,  "  is  the  knowledge  of  sin." 
It  merely  states  its  requirements  and  its  penalties, 
and  here  it  leaves  us.  Surely,  then,  with  such  a 
view  of  the  nature  of  the  law,  together  with  the 
fact  that  endless  punishment  is  always  declared  by 
its  advocates  to  be  its  penalty,  we  may  consistently 
expect  to  find  that  penalty  here,  if  any  where, 
annexed  to  the  law,  and  enforcing  the  authority  of 
its  sanctions.  In  short,  the  matter  is  this  :  endless 
punishment  is  declared  to  be  the  penalty  of  the 
law.  Of  course,  then,  we  must  look  for  the  pen- 
alty where  we  look  for  the  law.  And  if  we  cannot 
find  it  here,  where  can  we  find  it  ?  We  cannot 
more  rationally  expect  to  find  it  in  the  gospel, 
or  in  the  promises.  While  the  law  is  a  "  minis- 
tration of  condemnation  and  death,"  the  gospel 
is  styled  a  "  much  more  glorious  ministration  of 
life."  We  must,  then,  look  for  the  penalty  where 
we  look  for  the  law. 

Now  it  is  a  fact,  which  strikes  us  forcibly,  that 
the  law  of  God  knows  no  such  penalty  as  our  min- 
isters of  wo  assign  to  it,  The  law  does  not  contain 
it.  It  was  not  threatened  to  Adam  on  the  first 
transgression  —  it  was  not  mentioned  to  Cain  —  not 
a  lisp  of  it  to  the  antedeluvians,  who  were  swept 
from  the  earth  by  a  flood  —  not  an  intimation  of  it 


52  UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

to  the  cities  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  —  to  the 
Egyptians,  for  their  treatment  of  the  Israelites  — 
not  a  particle  of  it  in  all  the  law  given  in  terrors 
from  mount  Sinai  —  nor  in  the  case  of  Abimelech, 
the  sinful  Shechemites,  the  wicked  king  Ahab, 
Jezebel,  and  the  sinful  Amorites,  —  in  all  these 
cases  of  abominable  wickedness  not  the  most  dis- 
tant allusion  is  made  to  a  world  of  unceasing  tor- 
ment for  any  who  were  guilty. 

We  have  not  alluded  to  these  instances  of  iniquity 
without  a  sufficient  reason.  More  than  three  thou- 
sand years  had  now  passed,  from  the  creation  of 
the  world,  and  yet,  notwithstanding  all  this  wicked- 
ness, not  a  word,  not  an  intimation,  do  we  find  of 
the  common  doctrine  of  unceasing  misery.  Can  a 
sufficient  reason  be  assigned  ?  How  can  it  be  ac- 
counted for,  admitting  the  truth  of  such  momentous 
suffering  ?  Where  was  the  kindness  of  God  in  not 
warning  his  creatures  of  their  danger  ?  Peruse  the 
whole  code  of  Jewish  laws,  and  you  cannot  find 
such  a  penalty  so  much  as  intimated. 

And  this,  you  will  observe,  is  not  our  own  decla- 
ration merely,  but  admitted  even  by  the  opposers 
of  our  faith :  they  are  forced  to  admit  it,  for  the 
Bible,  thus  far,  is  as  silent  as  death  about  it.  And 
what  must  further  astonish  us,  is  a  still  wider  ad- 
mission, from  some  of  the  most  eminent  Orthodox 
critics  themselves,  that  the  whole  Old  Testament 
must  be  given  up,  as  affording  no  proof  at  all  of  the 
horrid  doctrine  of  unending  wo !  This  is  a  fact 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST 

which  but  few,  comparatively,  ___>^  T 
Campbell,  the  celebrated  Scotch  Presbyterian,  de- 
clares, "  It  is  plain,  that,  in  the  Old  Testament, 
the  most  profound  silence  is  observed  in  regard  to 
the  state  of  the  deceased  their  joys  or  sorrows, 
happiness  or  misery."  Dr.  Whitby,  an  eminent 
English  Episcopalian,  says  of  the  word  rendered 
hell  in  the  Old  Testament,  "It  is  the  place  to 
which  the  good  as  well  as  the  bad  go  ;  not  the  place 
of  punishment,  but  the  grave,  or  place  of  death." 
Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  the  great  Methodist  luminary, 
says,  on  Matt,  xi,  23,  "  The  word  hell  (the  same  as 
sheol  in  the  Old  Testament)  conveys  now  an  im- 
proper meaning  of  the  original  word,  because  hell 
is  (now)  only  used  to  signify  the  place  of  the 
damned."  Professor  Stuart,  of  one  of  our  own 
institutions  at  Andover,  Mass,  has  given  it  as  his 
opinion  that  there  are  but  Jive  texts  in  the  Old 
Testament  wherein  the  word  hell  occurs,  which 
even  teach  future  punishment ;  and  these,  he  says, 
do  not  determine  its  duration. 

What  a  concession  is  this  from  avowed  and 
eminent  defenders  of  the  eternity  of  punishment ! 
What  would  common  Christians  think,  those  who 
have  not  the  facilities  of  knowledge  which  these 
writers  had,  should  they  hear  their  faithful  minis- 
ters declare  a  truth  like  this  ?  Now,  is  it  right, 
can  it  be  right,  that  thousands  should  be  kept  in 
ignorance  of  a  fact  so  important,  and  so  unfavora- 
ble to  the  theory  in  question  ?  Is  it  right  that  so 


54  UNI  VERBALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

many  should  remain  in  darkness,  unaware  of  a 
truth  admitted  even  by  their  own  commentators, 
that  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  especially 
that  word  hell,  does  not  countenance  the  doctrine 
which  is,  time  after  time,  and  Sabbath  after  Sabbath, 
pressed  upon  them,  as  the  stay  and  pillar  of  social 
order,  morality,  and  virtue  ?  Verily  the  time  has 
come  when  the  people  should  mistrust  their 
teachers,  and  search  the  Scriptures  daily  as  the 
only  guide  to  truth.  Let  earnest,  careful,  prayer- 
ful search  take  the  place  of  mere  submission  to 
authority  of  men,  and  God  will  be  honored,  and 
his  truth  glorified  among  us. 

But,  to  keep  the  line  of  our  discourse,  we  have 
seen,  and  we  have  seen  that  others  opposed  to 
us  have  seen,  that  the  law  of  God,  whether  we  re- 
gard the  commands  and  threatenings  before  the 
deliverance  at  Sinai,  or  the  whole  of  those  laws 
given  amidst  thunderings  and  lightnings,  and  even 
the  whole  Old  Testament  itself,  does  not  intimate 
the  threatening  of  unceasing  misery. 

But  now  I  am  aware  that  it  may  be  said  that 
such  a  revelation  could  not  be  expected,  since  the 
doctrine  of  a.  future  life  was  not  revealed  till  Christ 
brought  life  and  immortality  to  light  through  the 
gospel.  To  this  we  reply,  a  future  life  was  re- 
vealed, though  perhaps  in  not  so  distinct  a  manner 
as  Christ  declared  it  to  the  world.  A  future  state 
of  being  is  recognized  in  many  places  in  the  Old 
Testament.  Christ  blamed  the  Sadducees  for  not 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM.  55 

learning  it  from  Moses  at  the  bush.  "  Now  that 
the  dead  are  raised,"  says  Jesus,  "  even  Moses 
showed  at  the  bush,  when  he  calleth  the  Lord  the 
God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the 
God  of  Jacob.  For  he  is  not  a  God  of  the  dead, 
but  of  the  living."  Again,  we  are  informed  that 
the  dust  returns  to  the  earth  as  it  was,  but  "  the 
spirit  unto  God  who  gave  it."  This  was  revealed 
in  Old  Testament  times.  Also  in  many  other 
places,  where  men  are  said  to  have  "  slept  with 
their  fathers,"  &c.  there  is  recognized  some  vague 
idea  of  a  future  state,  though  not  so  definite  arid 
distinct  as  is  set  forth  in  the  gospel.  If,  then,  a 
future  life  was  revealed,  why  not  the  tremendous 
idea  of  unending  torment  shadowed  forth  ?  Yea, 
even  admitting  all  that  this  argument  wants,  that  a 
future  life  was  not  revealed,  still  we  are  inclined  to 
press  the  question,  ivhy  not,  if  endless  punishment 
is  true  ?  This,  it  is  pretended,  is  the  penalty  of  the 
law.  The  law  was  revealed  ;  why  not  this  penalty  ? 
Yea,  why  not  blazed  in  characters  of  light  through- 
out the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  that  all  might 
have  seen  and  known  their  danger  ?  Where  was 
the  kindness  of  God  in  not  sounding  the  alarm  ? 
Think  you,  my  brethren !  millions  and  millions  of 
creatures  exposed  by  their  Creator  to  torments  in- 
expressible in  their  nature,  and  endless  in  their 
duration,  and  yet  all  as  silent  .as  death  about  it 
for  the  space  of  three  thousand,  and,  as  some 
admit,  four  thousand  four  hundred  years ;  and 


56  UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  going  down,  per- 
haps, to  welter  in  these  torments ;  and  still  no 
voice  of  warning,  nothing  at  all  from  the  Deity. 
Strange  to  conceive,  his  law  was  given  in  awful 
circumstances  of  terrific  grandeur,  but  not  a  word 
about  this  penalty ;  only  temporal  calamities, 
which,  to  the  idea  of  endless  sufferings,  are  as  but 
a  particle  of  flying  dust  to  the  boundless  universe 
around  us  !  Why  was  this  ?  Can  any  one  tell  ? 
We  are  satisfied  that,  if  this  had  been  a  truth,  we 
should  have  heard,  at  least,  something  of  it  in 
connection  with  the  law  of  God.  But  the  law  is 
silent,  and  our  proposition  is  established. 

II.  The  very  nature  of  the  law  renders  it  utterly 
impossible  that  such  a  penalty  as  endless  misery 
should  be  annexed  to  it  by  a  God  of  wisdom. 
What  is  the  nature  of  the  law  ?  What  is  the  sum 
and  substance  of  all  the  divine  commands  ? 
"  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thine 
heart,  and  thy  neighbor  as  thyself.  On  these  two 
commandments  hang  [or  depend]  all  the  law  and 
the  prophets."  Here,  then,  is  the  sum  and  sub- 
stance of  the  law.  Whatever  may  be  contained  in 
all  the  various  rules  and  directions  relative  to 
moral  actions,  it  is  all  embodied  in  this,  —  love  to 
God  and  man.  Here  we  have  the  subject  simpli- 
fied exceedingly.  Here,  too,  all  sects  are  agreed* 
We  have,  then,  got  another  starting  place  from 
which  to  proceed,  in  hopes  of  condemning  the  ob- 
jector in  the  thing  which  he  alloweth.  God,  it 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.  57 

seems,  has  enacted  a  law  that  his  creatures  shall 
love  him  with  all  their  hearts,  and  their  neighbors 
as  themselves.  To  this  all  men  assent.  But  to 
this  law  he  has  annexed  a  penalty,  it  is  said,  of 
endless  misery.  But  we  wish  to  inquire,  for  what 
are  penalties  annexed  to  laws,  if  not  to  secure 
obedience  to  those  laws  ?  You  would  marvel 
much  at  any  human  legislature  who  should 
enact  laws,  and  attach  such  penalties  as  were  not 
at  all  calculated  to  secure  obedience.  And  you 
would  marvel  still  more,  should  those  penalties  be 
rather  calculated  to  prevent  obedience,  and  perpet- 
uate hatred  and  rebellion.  But  how  has  God  con- 
ducted, according  to  the  system  of  jurisprudence  in 
question?  According  to  the  doctrine  of  endless 
punishment,  God  has  enacted  a  law  of  love,  that 
his  creatures  shall  love  him  with  all  their  hearts, 
and  love  one  another  as  themselves :  to  this  he  has 
annexed  a  penalty  which,  instead  of  securing  his 
design  in  the  obedience  of  that  law,  goes  directly 
to  defeat  it,  and  perpetuate  eternal  disobedience 
and  hatred  !  For  in  that  world  of  wo,  it  is  affirmed, 
no  love  dwells,  no  reconciliation  exists,  but  its 
wretched  inhabitants  are  eternally  employed  in 
works  of  malice,  hatred,  and  rebellion.  Is  it  to  be 
supposed  that  a  God  of  wisdom  would  have  thus 
conducted  ?  Make  a  law  requiring  obedience, 
attach  a  penalty  which,  instead  of  securing  it,  com- 
pels the  disobedient  to  go  on  eternally  disobeying  ! 
My  candid  hearers,  the  law  of  God  requires  and 
6 


58  UN1VERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM, 

will  accept  of  nothing  but  obedience.  Surely,  it 
will  not  accept  of  disobedience  as  a  substitute. 
But,  says  one,  it  is  plain  that  the  law  of  God  must 
have  some  penalty,  that  some  punishment  must 
be  inflicted  for  the  disobedience  of  it.  True  ;  but 
where  is  the  wisdom  of  inflicting  a  punishment 
which,  instead  of  securing  the  design  of  the  law, 
goes  directly  to  defeat  it  ? 

Suppose  a  similar  case.  Suppose  a  human 
legislature  should  enact  a  law  for  the  prevention  of 
theft,  requiring  the  subjects  of  the  government  to 
be  honest  men.  Now  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose 
that  the  government  would  accept  of  nothing  but 
honesty.  But,  contrary  to  this,  a  penalty  is  an- 
nexed to  this  law,  which,  inflicted,  compels  the 
thief  to  go  on  stealing  all  his  life-time !  And  this 
satisfies  the  government !  Notwithstanding  the 
law  requires  honesty,  it  accepts  perpetual  dishon- 
esty instead !  In  fact,  the  penalty  is  such  that  it 
compels  the  criminal  to  repeat  his  crimes,  and 
makes  obedience  impossible. 

Now  this,  in  sober  truth,  is  precisely  the  way  of 
the  Creator,  as  represented  by  modern  misnamed 
Orthodox  divinity.  He  enacts  a  law  requiring 
love,  and  accepts  eternal  hatred  as  a  substitute. 
He  requires  obedience,  yet  the  penalty  compels  to 
eternal  disobedience.  We  had  always  thought  that 
penalties  were  annexed  to  laws  to  make  obedient 
subjects.  But  here  is  a  case,  and  it  arrogates  the 
name  of  Orthodoxy,  where  the  penalty  of  the  law 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST   PARTIALISM.  59 

of  love  to  God  insures  eternal  hatred  to  him ; 
where  obedience  is  required,  but  the  law  is  satisfied 
with  eternal  disobedience  !  We  consider  our  prop- 
osition abundantly  established,  —  that  the  very 
nature  of  the  law  renders  it  utterly  impossible  that 
such  a  penalty  as  endless  misery  should  be  an- 
nexed to  it  by  a  God  of  wisdom. 

But  this  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  a  declaration 
of  Jesus  Christ,  concerning  the  fulfilment  of  the 
law :  "  Think  not,"  said  he,  "  that  I  am  come  to 
destroy  the  law,  or  the  prophets :  I  am  not  come  to 
destroy,  but  to  fulfil.  For,  verily  I  say  unto  you, 
till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot  or  one  tittle  shall 
in  no  wise  pass  from  the  law  TILL  ALL  BE  FUL- 
FILLED." (Matt.  v.  17,  18.)  Who  will  oppose 
this  declaration  ?  God  will  never  accept  disobedi- 
ence and  hatred  for  obedience  and  love.  If  all 
the  law  is  contained  in  love  to  God  and  man  — 
and  it  is,  for  on  these  two  commands  hang  all  the 
law  and  the  prophets  —  and  if  not  one  jot  or  tittle 
shall  pass  from  this  law  till  it  all  be  fulfilled, 
evidently  the  time  must  come  when  it  will  be  all 
fulfilled,  all  disobedience  done  away,  all  hatred 
destroyed,  and  love  to  God  be  universal !  How 
much  more  consistent  is  this  beautiful  harmony  of 
sacred  truth  than  the  maze  of  confusion  and  ab- 
surdity which  we  have  just  examined  !  Our  propo- 
sition, then,  is  established  and  confirmed,  and  the 
conclusion  thus  far  is,  that  the  doctrine  of  endless 
punishment  is  nowhere  found  in  connection  with 


60  imiVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

the  law  of  God,  and  is,  moreover,  opposed  to  the 
very  nature  of  the  law. 

III.  This  doctrine,  with  its  connections,  denies 
the  unchangedbleness  of  God.  That  God  is  un- 
changeable is  also  a  truth  admitted  on  every  hand ; 
and  here,  again,  we  are  all  agreed  in  the  outset. 
But  look  at  this  fact  in  connection  with  the  divine 
goodness,  as  set  forth  by  the  'advocates  of  endless 
wo.  Endless  punishment  can  be  nothing  less  than 
the  effect  of  endless  wrath.  Without  endless 
wrath,  or  enmity,  or  hatred  —  call  it  either  name 
you  please  —  endless  punishment  could  not  be 
administered  ;  for,  certainly,  it  cannot  be  pretended 
that  complacency,  or  love,  or  friendship,  would 
inflict  such  a  misery.  As,  then,  endless  punish- 
ment is  dependent  on  endless  enmity,  by  showing 
that  endless  enmity  denies  the  unchangeableness  of 
God,  we  shall  show  that  endless  punishment  does 
likewise ;  for  this  latter  is  entirely  dependent  on 
the  former.  Now  look  throughout  the  world,  and 
observe  the  effort,  the  exertion,  the  countless 
means  put  in  operation  to  save  mankind  from  the 
endless  enmity  of  God,  and  ask  yourselves  what  all 
this  in  reality  is.  Disguise  it  as  much  as  you  will, 
—  talk  about  saving  free  moral  agents,  doing  the 
work  of  an  evangelist,  preaching  the  word  of 
reconciliation,  —  what,  in  reason's  name,  do  we  see, 
in  reality,  but  one  wide  and  presumptuous  attempt 
to  change  the  unchangeable  God,  to  turn  away  his 
enmity,  to  obtain  his  favor,  to  convert  him  from  an 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM.  61 

enemy  to  a  friend  of  man  ?  I  have  no  doubt  that 
I  am  addressing  some  Christians  now  who  are 
accustomed  to  listen,  week  after  week,  to  the  ap- 
peals, the  entreaties,  and  the  exhortations  of  their 
ministers,  who  are  laboring  to  subdue  their  stubborn 
hearts,  and  turn  them  from  the  ways  of  wickedness 
to  virtue,  and  all  this  for  the  purpose  of  making 
God,  who  is  now  declared  to  be  their  enemy,  their 
faithful  and  enduring  friend.  And  is  it  not  strange, 
passing  strange,  that  the  monstrosity  of  this  attempt 
should  never  have  been  suggested  to  the  mind  ? 
To  turn  man  from  the  ways  of  wickedness  to  wis- 
dom is  a  laudable  work ;  but  to  do  this  in  hopes  of 
changing  the  affections  of  the  almighty  and  un- 
changeable One,  —  to  do  it  in  hopes  of  averting  his 
enmity  and  procuring  his  favor,  —  to  do  it,  in  fact, 
and  then  to  assure  the  deluded  converts  that  the 
change  is  effected,  that  the  wrath  of  the  Almighty 
is  turned  to  grace,  that  God,  the  immutable,  has 
experienced  as  great,  and,  in  truth,  a  greater  con- 
version than  the  sinner,  is  a  presumptuous  and 
open  defiance  of  the  immutability  of  Jehovah. 

This  argument,  my  Christian  friends,  is  not  only 
felt  to  be  of  some  force  with  us,  but  it  is  felt  by 
the  rejectors  of  our  doctrine;  and,  accordingly, 
they  have  resolved  the  matter  into  this :  that 
God's  unchangeableness  in  this  respect  consists  in 
ever  approving  virtue  and  condemning  sin  ;  and, 
accordingly,  while  the  individual  lives  in  sin,  he 
may  experience  the  enmity,  and,  when  he  turns 
fi* 


62  UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

from  sin  to  virtue,  he  may  then  experience  the 
friendship  of  God,  without  any  change  on  the  part 
of  Deity ;  for,  from  the  beginning,  he  has  ever  been 
the  enemy  of  sin  and  the  friend  of  virtue.  The 
Deity  does  not,  then,  hate  and  love  the  same  ob- 
ject at  different  times,  but  the  object  becomes 
changed,  which  at  first  was  sinful,  and  afterwards 
virtuous,  —  first  the  sinner,  and  then  the  saint. 

This  argument  is  composed  partly  of  truth  and 
partly  of  error.  It  is  true  that  God's  unchange- 
ableness  consists  in  ever  approving  virtue  and  con- 
demning sin.  But  the  conclusion  does  not  follow 
that  he  may  hate  the  sinner,  and  love  the  same  in- 
dividual when  turned  to  virtue,  without  manifesting 
any  change.  A  discriminating  mind  will  detect 
this  distinction,  —  a  difference  between  sin  and 
the  sinner.  God  may  hate  sin,  and  still  love  the 
sinner.  This  may  be,  in  the  same  way  that  a 
parent  hates  the  wickedness  of  a  disobedient  child, 
but  still  loves  the  child.  Now,  when  it  is  affirmed 
that  God's  unchangeableness  consists  in  ever  hating 
sin  and  loving  virtue,  we  will  agree  in  this.  But, 
mind  you,  it  is  the  sinner,  not  sin,  who  is  repre- 
sented to  experience  the  enmity  of  God.  And 
when  the  sinner  turns  to  virtue,  it  is  not  the  virtue, 
but  this  same  individual,  who  is  then  declared  to 
be  the  friend  of  God.  The  Deity,  then,  does  hate 
and  love,  according  to  this  doctrine,  the  same  ob- 
ject at  different  times. 

We  hope  this  argument  is  understood,  for  it  is 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.  63 

an  important  error  which  is  here  exposed.  There 
is  surely  a  distinction  between  sin  and  the  person 
who  sins.  Now  the  doctrine  of  endless  punish- 
ment declares  that  not  only  sin,  but  the  person  who 
sins,  is  an  object  of  God's  hatred.  And,  when  the 
sinner  turns  to  virtue,  it  is  not  the  virtue  alone,  but 
this  same  person  who  sinned,  who  is  now  declared 
to  be  an  object  of  God's  unfailing  love  ;  and  all 
this  without  any  change  on  the  part  of  Deity. 
Thousands  of  preachers  and  exhorters  are  going 
forth  into  the  world,  not  merely  to  induce  people 
to  give  up  their  sin  and  to  become  virtuous,  that 
thus  they  may  escape  a  punishment  and  insure  a 
reward,  but  they  are  inducing  men  to  give  up  sin 
and  become  virtuous,  that  they  may  thereby  change 
God's  enmity  to  love  !  Yea,  they  are  trying,  with 
Herculean  power,  to  convert  Jehovah  from  the 
deadly  enemy  to  the  enduring  friend  of  man  !  A 
mind  with  any  reverence  for  its  Maker  ought  to 
tremble  at  the  blasphemy  of  the  thought.  And 
yet,  strange  to  conceive,  thousands  and  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  Christians  are  assenting  to  this 
truth,  and  giving  it  their  full  and  cordial  support, 
as  the  truth  of  Him  who  is  the  same,  yesterday, 
to-day,  and  forever  !  Alas,  for  the  blinding  power 
of  human  creeds  and  educational  prejudice  !  We 
consider  our  third  proposition  fully  established, — 
that  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment,  as  com- 
monly held  forth,  denies  the  unchangeableness  of 
God. 


64  UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PAHTIALISM. 

IV.  This  doctrine  declares  the  inefficacy  of  the 
labors,  sufferings,  and  death,  and  the  everlasting 
disappointment  and  dissatisfaction  of  Jesus  Christ. 
For  what  did  Christ  labor  in  the  earth  ?  He  had  a 
work  to  do  while  here  in  the  flesh.  "  My  meat," 
says  he,  "  is  to  do  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me, 
and  to  finish  his  work."  What  was  the  will  of 
him  that  sent  him  ?  Jesus  himself  shall  answer : 
"  I  came  down  from  heaven,  not  to  do  my  own 
will,  but  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me.  And  this  is 
the  will  of  him  that  sent  me,  that  of  all  which 
he  hath  given  me,  I  should  lose  nothing."  But 
how  many  were  given  to  Christ  ?  "  The  Father 
loveth  the  Son,  and  hath  given  all  things  into  his 
hands."  Then  it  seems  that  the  work  which 
Christ  came  to  do  was  the  will  of  God,  and  the  will 
of  God  was,  that  of  all  which  were  given  to  Christ, 
he  should  lose  nothing.  This  was  the  work  for 
which  Christ  labored,  suffered,  and  died.  Indeed, 
it  is  now  generally  admitted  that  Christ  died  for 
all,  according  to  the  import  of  the  Scriptures 
which  declare  that  he  "  gave  himself  a  ransom  for 
all,"  and  "  tasted  death  for  every  man." 

But  how  inefficacious  will  his  labors,  sufferings, 
and  death  prove,  if  a  considerable  portion,  or  any 
for  whom  he  died,  are  never  to  experience  his 
salvation,  but  exist  forever  in  misery  and  sin  !  It 
is  useless  to  say  that  men  will  not  come  unto  him 
and  be  saved.  This  is  the  most  trifling  evasion. 
God  saw  the  difficulties,  if  any,  which  would  result 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.  65 

rom  man's  free  agency ;  and  when  he  sent  his  Son 

0  die  for  the  human  race,  these   difficulties  must 
lave  been  contemplated.     And  if,  notwithstanding 
hese,  his  plan  of  salvation  is  to  fail,  what  a  reflec- 
ion  upon  his  efficiency  !     It  would  be  singular,  in- 
leed,  should  Christ  fail  in  this  benevolent  under- 
aking,  for  he  himself  has  reproved  the  folly  of 
etting  out  in  a  work  without  first  calculatiug  the 
lifficulties  attending  it.     "  Which  of  you,"  he  says, 

1  intending  to  build  a  tower,  sitteth  not  down  first 
ind  counteth  the  cost,  whether  he  have  sufficient 
o  finish  it  ?     Lest,  haply,  after  he  hath  laid  the 
bundation,  and  is  not  able  to  finish,  all  that  behold 
t  begin  to  mock  him,  saying,  This  man  began  to 
>uild,  but  was  not  able  to  finish.     Or  what  king, 
[oing  to  make  war  against  another  king,  sitteth  not 
lown  first  and  consulteth  whether  he  is  able,  with 
en  thousand,  to  meet  him  that  cometh  against  him 
vith    twenty*   thousand."      (Luke   xiv.   28 — 31.) 
>urely  he  who  delivered  this  instruction,  and  ad- 
ninistered    this   reproof,  would  never  himself  set 
»ut  in  a  work,  —  the  work  of  universal  redemption, 
—  without  first  sitting   down   and  calculating  the 
lifficulties  attending  it,  whether  from  free  agency 
>r  any  thing  else.     And  do  you  think,  then,  he 
vill  not  accomplish  his  work  ? 

But  the  case  of  Christ,  according  to  popular 
heology,  was  different  from  either  of  the  former. 
?he  conduct  of  him  was  more  unwise  than  a  man 
vho  should  set  out  to  build  a  tower,  or  a  king  who 


66  T7NIVEHSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

should  go  to  war  against  another  king,  without  first 
looking  at  their  situation  and  capacity.  They 
might  have  some  ground  for  beginning  their  work 
on  uncertainties,  —  some  ground  for  expectation  of 
aid  from  some  human  source  or  other ;  and,  ac- 
cordingly, they  commence  their  work,  although  at 
first  incompetent  to  finish  it,  not  knowing  but  they 
may  be  competent  from  growing  means.  But  look 
at  the  work  of  Jesus  Christ.  He  undertook  a  work 
which,  according  to  the  common  theory,  he  not 
only  cannot  finish,  but  which  he  kneiv,  at  the  com- 
mencement, he  could  not !  But  if  he  did  not 
know,  but  only  labored  and  desired,  why  reprove 
others  for  engaging  in  an  enterprise  without  first 
counting  the  cost  and  difficulties  ?  And  if  he  did 
not  know,  but  only  endeavored  for  the  good  of  all, 
he  must,  according  to  the  theory  in  question,  be 
everlastingly  disappointed  and  dissatisfied.  For 
he  labored,  suffered,  and  died  for  all,  and  only  a 
part  are  to  reap  any  benefit  from  his  mission.  But 
what  saith  the  Scriptures  on  this  subject  ?  "  He 
shall  see  of  the  travail  of  his  soul,  and  be  satis- 
fied." (Isa.  liii.  11.)  Therefore,  our  fourth  propo- 
sition is  established,  —  that  the  doctrine  of  endless 
punishment  declares  the  inefficacy  of  the  labors, 
sufferings,  and  death,  and  the  everlasting  disap- 
pointment and  dissatisfaction  of  Jesus  Christ. 

V.  This  doctrine,  with  its  connections,  attaches 
more  importance  to  the  works  of  men  than  to  the 
grace  of  God.  There  is  no  one  truth  respecting 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.  67 

our  salvation  set  forth  with  more  clearness,  than 
that  it  is  "  the  gift  of  God  ;  not  of  works,  lest  any 
man  should  boast."  This  truth  is  repeated  with 
such  frequency  and  distinctness  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, that  not  only  ourselves,  but  all  Christian 
sects,  acknowledge  it,  and  are  free  to  confess  that 
the  doctrine  of  free  grace  is  at  least  one  item  in 
the  true  Christian  faith. 

But,  notwithstanding  these  professions  and  pre- 
tensions, what  do  we  perceive,  in  reality,  in  the 
theory  of  a  partial  salvation  ?  Evidently,  that  the 
works  of  men,  —  the  independent  works  of  men, 
—  independent  of  the  grace  of  God,  are  absolutely 
necesvsary  to  secure  salvation.  "  But  stop,"  says 
an  objector ;  "  it  must  be  palpably  evident  that, 
notwithstanding  the  free  grace  of  God,  something 
is  requisite  on  our  part ;  for,  although  the  sun 
shines  as  a  free  gift  upon  the  lands  of  all,  yet, 
without  our  labor,  we  should  never  secure  the 
productions  of  the  earth." 

We  admit  the  justness  of  the  comparison,  but 
cannot  admit  the  justness  of  the  conclusion  to 
which  it  aims.  To  be  sure,  the  rays  of  the  sun 
and  the  labor  of  men  are  both  necessary  to  secure 
the  harvest.  And  if  man  did  not  work,  the  harvest 
would  not  come  to  him.  The  harvest,  therefore, 
is  not  so  free  a  gift  as  that  it  will  come  forcibly 
upon  us,  whether  we  will  or  no.  But  it  is  a  lame 
comparison,  after  all.  Does  not  God,  in  the  be- 
stowment  of  this  gift,  influence  the  will  of  the  hus- 


00  UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

bandman  to  cooperate  with  his  own  ?  To  be  sure 
he  does.  For,  in  the  very  promise  that  seedtime 
and  harvest  should  not  fail,  God  must  have  deter- 
mined to  put  in  operation  the  causes  which  would 
infallibly  secure  it.  One  of  these  causes  is  the 
consenting  will  of  man.  God  does  not  make  man 
a  passive  recipient  of  a  temporary  harvest,  neither 
will  he  make  him  a  passive  recipient  of  eternal 
salvation.  His  will  will  cooperate  with  the  will  of 
man,  and  man  become  a  willing  subject  of  Mes- 
siah's kingdom. 

But  the  system  we  oppose  does  not  admit  this- 
fact  with  reference  to  those  who  fail  of  God's  sal- 
vation. No ;  God  leaves  them  to  pursue  their  way 
to  ruin.  God  did  not  leave  the  husbandman  to 
neglect  a  preparation  for  the  harvest.  He  stimu- 
lated his  will,  plied  him  with  proper  motives  and 
inducements,  and,  by  the  want  of  daily  bread, 
influenced  him  to  labor  for  it.  If  you  say  that  the 
man  acted  of  his  own  accord,  arid  might  not  have 
so  acted,  we  reply,  he  did  act  freely  and  of  his 
own  accord,  but  he  had  no  control  over  the  mo- 
tives which  induced  him.  Again,  make  the  very 
worst  of  this  case  ;  suppose  that  some,  in  the  mat- 
ter of  a  temporary  harvest,  through  idleness  and 
sloth,  fail  of  it ;  yet  none  can  fail  of  that  eternal 
harvest ;  for  here,  according  to  the  very  doctrine 
in  question,  God's  will  is  universal,  and  it  is  "  God 
who  worketh  in  us  both  to  will  and  to  do  of  his 
good  pleasure."  (Phil.  ii.  13.) 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIAL1SM.  €9 

Thus,  the  sun  will  not  only  shine,  the  Sun  of 
righteousness,  upon  the  heart  of  man,  but  God  will 
apply  his  motives,  —  motives  which  will  prove 
effectual  in  inducing  us  to  embrace  the  offered 
good.  Thus  will  his  grace  be  free,  and  first  in 
importance ;  the  powers  of  man  will  be  called  into 
action ;  and  salvation  will  be  universal,  according 
to  the  will  of  God. 

But  the  doctrine  we  oppose  attaches  more 
importance  to  the  works  of  men ;  for,  while  it 
admits,  in  words,  the  sovereign  efficacy  of  the 
Almighty's  grace,  it  denies  that  this  grace  will 
prove  effectual  in  "  creating  us  in  Christ  Jesus 
unto  good  works,  which  God  hath  before  ordained 
that  we  should  walk  in  them."  (Eph,  ii.  10.)  In 
other  words,  it  assumes  the  position  that  good 
works,  or  a  regenerated  character,  is  necessary  to 
salvation;  or,  rather,  that  regeneration  is  itself 
salvation,  when  perfected ;  arid,  at  the  same  time, 
it  denies  that  the  grace  of  God  will  prove  efficient 
to  "  create  "  those  good  works,  or  to  produce  that 
regeneration.  For  countless  thousands  never  will 
experience  it.  While,  then,  good  works  are  neces- 
sary, of  absolute  importance,  and  must  be  per- 
formed, it  denies  that  the  grace  of  God  will  induce 
the  creature  to  perform  them.  According  to  our 
proposition,  it  attaches  more  importance  to  the 
works  of  men  than  to  the  grace  of  God. 

VI.  The  doctrine  of  endless  punishment  is  one 
that  charity  never  can  rejoice  in.  This  may  ap- 
7 


70  UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

pear  rather  unconvincing  of  its  falsity,  if  we  do  not 
consider  in  connection  with  it  a  declaration  of  the 
apostle :  "  Charity,"  says  he,  "  rejoiceth  not  in 
iniquity,  but  rejoiceth  in  the  truth."  (1  Cor.  xiii. 
6.)  Can,  then,  endless  misery  be  any  part  of  the 
truth  ?  Where  is  the  charity  that  would  rejoice  in 
the  prospective  damnation  of  millions  of  God's 
rational  offspring  ?  Indeed,  it  is  when  we  reflect 
upon  the  fact  that  the  charity  of  no  man  could 
wish  it  true,  together  with  the  fact  that  the  joys  of 
heaven  must  be  diminished,  if  its  blest  inhabitants 
are  knowing  to  the  truth  that  millions  of  their  race 
are  suffering  and  writhing  in  torments  inexpressi- 
ble,—  it  is,  I  say,  when  we  reflect  upon  these 
facts,  that  we  are  convinced  of  the  absurdity  of 
the  doctrine  in  question.  No  mortal,  except  of 
the  stamp  of  a  Nero  —  who,  it  is  said,  could  dance 
at  the  music  of  the  cries  of  those  whom  he  doomed 
to  a  burning  at  the  stake — can  look  upon  human 
suffering  in  this  world  without  sympathizing  with 
the  sufferer,  and  sharing  his  woes.  Are  the  inhab- 
itants of  heaven  to  view  unmoved,  or  to  know  of 
unmoved,  the  endless  damnation  of  millions  of 
their  race,  without  any  tenderness  or  sympathy, 
and  without  being  deprived  of  a  portion  of  their 
happiness  ?  Yea,  are  they  to  rejoice  at  this  spec- 
tacle, with  hallelujahs  on  their  tongues,  and  shouts 
of  amen  to  the  damnation  of  their  nearest  relatives, 
as  is  sometimes  affirmed !  Then  charity,  the 
greatest  of  the  Christian  virtues  —  greater  than 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM.  71 

faith  or  hope  —  will  not  exist  in  the  city  of  our 
God ;  but  a  hard-heartedness,  and  an  unfeeling 
selfishness,  and  a  cold,  exclusive,  inhuman,  savage 
spirit,  will  pervade  the  celestial  mansions,  and,  to 
a  charitable  heart,  cast  an  air  of  repulsion  over  all 
its  joys.  We  rest,  then,  in  the  conclusion  that  the 
doctrine  of  endless  punishment  is  what  charity 
never  can  rejoice  in,  —  therefore,  is  not  a  truth; 
for  "  charity  rejoiceth  not  in  iniquity,  but  rejoiceth 
in  the  truth." 

VII.  This  doctrine,  with  its  connections,  if  true, 
is  true  for  all  mankind.  It  maintains  that  holiness 
is  requisite  in  this  life  to  escape  it, — that  there  is 
no  change  after  death ;  and  now  let  us  see  where 
this  will  carry  us.  We  have  here  nothing  to  say 
about  a  change  of  heart  in  this  life,  the  work  of 
sanctification  being  begun  here,  &c.  &c.  in  order 
to  show,  with  a  semblance  of  propriety,  that  such 
may  more  likely  be  fitted  for  heaven  than  others 
in  whom  the  work  is  not  yet  begun.  Our  simple 
remark  is  on  the  idea  held  out  by  this  theory,  that 
there  is  no  change  after  death.  Select  the  very- 
best  individual  you  can  find  on  earth,  and  ask  him 
if  he  would  be  willing  to  carry  his  character  with 
him  for  a  whole  eternity,  among  the  holy  and  the 
perfect  in  the  paradise  above.  No  man,  it  is  pre- 
sumed, is  perfect  here  below ;  none  but  what  need 
some  change,  some  mighty  change,  to  fit  them  for 
the  society  of  the  blest  above.  And  if  there  is  no 
change,  either  at  death  or  after,  and  all  who  are 


72  UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST  PARTIALISM. 

not,  on  this  earth,  fitted  for  a  perfect  heaven,  must 
be  doomed  to  a  wretched  hell,  then  there  is  no 
alternative ;  all  mankind  must  go  and  wail  away 
an  eternity  of  damnation.  It  cannot  be  got  over, 
that  if,  on  this  ground,  the  doctrine  of  endless  pun- 
ishment is  true,  it  is  true  for  all  mankind. 

VIII.  The  doctrine  in  question  is  of  no  good 
moral  influence.  Here  let  us  not  be  misunderstood. 
I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  those  who  believe  this 
doctrine  exhibit  the  fruits  of  no  moral  influence. 
We  know  that  there  are  good,  and  there  are  bad, 
and  there  are  indifferent,  among  all  denominations. 
But  what  we  mean  to  affirm  is,  that  while  a  thou- 
sand other  religious  considerations — the  goodness 
of  God,  the  love  of  Christ,  the  hope  of  heaven,  the 
duty  of  man,  the  fear  of  temporal  calamities  and 
punishments,  &c.  &c. — while  these  and  other 
considerations  may  exert  a  good  moral  influence 
over  the  hearts  of  those  who  believe  the  popular 
doctrine,  the  consideration  of  an  endless  hell  is 
comparatively  of  no  good  moral  influence  at  all. 
All  the  good  moral  tendency,  we  apprehend,  is 
from  other  considerations,  such  as  we  have  named ; 
while  the  doctrine  of  endless  punishment  is  among 
the  least  of  the  causes  of  moral  improvement 
among  men. 

It  is,  however,  a  common  remark,  that,  if  end- 
less punishment  cannot  prevent  a  man  from  sin- 
ning, nothing  can.  Surely,  the  idea  is  awful 
enough,  —  most  assuredly  it  is ;  and  there  lies  the 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST 

• 

difficulty  :  it  is  too  awful.  From 
it  loses  its  power  of  alarm  ;  for  it  is  altogether  4ee 
much  for  human  credulity.  The  more  tremendous 
you  make  this  punishment  appear,  the  more  it 
exceeds  human  belief.  Take  any  reasonable,  re- 
flecting man,  who  is  not  so  warped  and  blinded  by 
a  creed  that  the  light  cannot  shine  into  his  mind, 
and  the  more  he  reflects  upon  this  subject,  the 
more  skeptical  will  he  become.  Indeed,  there  is 
already  a  skepticism  on  this  subject,  which  but  few 
comparatively  are  aware  of.  Hundreds  and  thou- 
sands of  souls  there  are  who  inwardly  reject  this 
doctrine  ;  yet,  through  fear  of  "  the  Pharisees,  they 
dare  not  confess  it,  lest  they  should  be  put  out  of 
the  synagogue ;  for  they  love  the  praise  of  men 
more  than  the  praise  of  God."  This  is,  indeed, 
plain,  but  it  is  the  language  of  plain  truth.  As  we 
were  saying,  take  any  reasonable,  unprejudiced 
man,  and  press  this  subject  upon  his  mind ;  urge 
it  untiringly  upon  him ;  go,  talk  to  him  about 
torment  upon  torment,  and  pang  upon  pang,  wax- 
ing fiercer  and  fiercer  as  the  ages  of  eternity  roll 
round  ;  and,  ten  chances  to  one,  he  will  tell  you  to 
go  talk  to  the  winds.  But  convince  him  of  a  rea- 
sonable punishment, — one  proportioned  to  the 
crime,  and  which  would  come  with  infallible  cer- 
tainty upon  him,  —  and  this  would  prove  a  rational 
and  wholesome  restraint  upon  his  evil  passions  and 
propensities.  This  would  excite  a  fear,  whereas, 
7* 


74  UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

• 

the  other,  from  its  very  terror,  loses  its  power  of 
alarm. 

Again,  it  should  be  remembered  that  it  is  the 
certainty,  and  not  the  severity,  of  punishment, 
which  most  effectually  restrains  from  sin.  Those 
who  are  familiar  with  our  civil  code  will  tell  you 
that  it  is  this  certainty  of  which  we  speak,  and  not 
the  magnitude  of  a  penal  evil,  which  holds  out  the 
most  terror  to  the  criminal.  A  penalty  altogether 
monstrous,  and  disproportioned  to  the  crime,  will 
not  be  believed ;  or,  if  it  is,  it  is  generally  accom- 
panied with  a  pretty  comfortable  hope  of  escape. 
It  is  so,  in  countless  instances,  with  the  imaginary 
penalty  of  endless  misery.  To  be  sure,  there  is  a 
dim,  vague,  distant  idea ;  but  there  is  not  a  lively, 
well-settled,  undoubting,  realizing  faith.  And  it  is 
well  there  is  not ;  for  humanity  could  not  bear  it. 
And  it  is  a  melancholy  fact,  that,  in  those  few  cases 
where  the  horrid  idea  is  brought  home  in  living 
power  to  the  mind — where  the  poor  victims  to  its 
influence  have  been  amazed  and  confounded  with 
its  terrors,  and  driven  to  the  thought  that  there  was 
no  mercy  for  them,  that  they  were  the  objects  of 
God's  wrath,  and  the  devoted  victims  of  his  hot 
displeasure — they  have  generally  been  whelmed 
in  the  maniac's  gloom,  and  terminated  their 
wretched  lives  by  laying  violent  hands  upon  them- 
selves. For  the  actors  and  instruments  in  these 
wretched  tragedies,  —  "Father,  forgive  them,  for 
they  know  not  what  they  do." 


UN1VERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.  75 

But  we  must  press  again  our  subject.  We  have 
said,  the  idea  of  endless  suffering  is  too  awful.  It 
exceeds  human  belief.  Or,  if  there  is  a  stupid, 
thoughtless,  unrealizing  faith  in  it,  it  is,  at  best,  a 
faith  which  causes  no  comparative  concern.  One 
would  think  that  a  real,  hearty,  unwavering  belief 
in  the  endless  damnation  of  any  of  the  species 
would  be  enough  to  make  the  believer  "  put  on 
sackcloth  and  ashes,  and  go  mourning  about  the 
streets."  Christians,  friends,  what  are  we  thinking 
about  ?  This  whole  congregation,  this  town's 
population,  the  inhabitants  of  this  whole  earth,  ex- 
posed to  a  hell  all  fathomless  and  boundless  ;  where 
no  reprieve  is  granted,  where  torture  upon  torture 
is  inflicted,  and  measured  out,  and  measured  out, 
to  rack  the  body  and  torment  the  soul ;  and  after 
the  mighty  roll  of  innumerable  ages  has  passed 
away,  the  wretched  sufferers  are  not  one  moment 
nearer  their  end  than  when  they  first  commenced 
their  horrid  destiny  :  it  is  all  to  be  gone  over  with 
again,  and  then  again ;  and  there  is  no  mitigation, 
and  no  end  ;  heavens !  if  I  believed  this  doctrine, 
the  churches  would  tremble,  or  God  would  not 
allow  me  strength.  Yea,  let  the  believers,  and 
especially  the  preachers,  of  this  doctrine,  clothe 
themselves  in  sackcloth,  and,  as  the  false  prophet 
ran  through  the  streets  of  Jerusalem,  crying  wo, 
wo,  wo,  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  great  city  ;  so  let 
them  lift  up  their  voices,  and  tire  not,  crying  wo, 
wo,  wo,  to  the  inhabitants  of  earth,  whose  eternal 


76  UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

destiny,  for  bliss  or  for  torment,  hangs  upon  a  hair, 
which,  cut  away,  they  fall,  and  fall-—  forever. 

My  candid  friends,  please  keep  your  minds  upon 
the  subject,  Is  this  doctrine  believed  ?  Is  it  re- 
flected on  ?  Admit  that  it  is.  Admit,  also,  that, 
many  times,  the  fear  of  hell  may  be  of  a  restrain- 
ing influence  ;  that,  by  the  fear  of  it,  many  acts  of 
wickedness  are  prevented  ;  still  we  are  inclined  to 
press  the  question,  what  is  such  obedience  good 
for  ?  For  "  he  that  feareth  is  not  made  perfect  in 
love."  A  slave's  obedience,  and  nothing  more,  is 
that  which  proceedeth  from  a  fear  of  hell, 

We  have  said  that  a  hundred  other  religious 
considerations,  such  as  the  goodness  of  God,  the 
love  of  Christ,  the  hope  of  heaven,  the  suggestions 
of  duty,  and  the  fear  of  temporal  punishments, 
the  loss  of  reputation,  the  law  of  the  land,  and  the 
penitentiary,  operate  upon  the  minds  of  men  to 
keep  them  in  the  way  of  virtue,  while  the  doctrine 
of  endless  punishment,  even  though  believed,  is 
comparatively  of  no  good  influence  at  all.  Now 
it  is  the  latter  consideration,  —  the  fear  of  temporal 
punishments,  the  loss  of  reputation,  the  law  of  the 
land,  &c. —  which,  after  all,  is  felt  to  be  the  most 
effectual  in  restraining  the  evil  passions  and  pro- 
pensities of  men.  Believers  in  endless  punish- 
ment may  not  be  willing  to  admit  this.  But  their 
actions  admit  it.  For  what  are  all  the  exertions  to 
discourago  sin  and  promote  virtue  in  the  earth  ?  Is 
it  all  because  of  endless  punishment  in  a  future 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM.  77 

world  ?  Take  a  particular  case.  For  what  is  all 
this  stir  in  the  moral  world  about  temperance? 
And  why  are  societies  formed,  and  measures  taken, 
to  prevent  the  spread  of  intemperance  in  the  land  ? 
Suppose  there  are  two  reasons  for  this.  And  let 
us  suppose  all  that  weight  of  reason  derived  from 
the  prospect  of  endless  ruin  for  the  drunkard 
placed  in  one  scale,  and  all  that  derived  from  the 
wretchedness  and  misery  which  drunkenness  pro- 
duces in  the  earth  placed  in  another  :  do  you  not 
think  that  the  scale  filled  with  earthly  reasons 
would  weigh  down  with  a  tremendous  force  ?  Is 
it  not  plain  that  the  shame,  and  disgrace,  and 
misery,  which  drunkenness  pours  upon  the  earth 
operate  more  powerfully  to  stimulate  men  to 
action  in  this  great  moral  enterprise  than  any  con- 
sideration of  the  miseries  of  another  world  ? 

Perhaps  it  will  be  said  that  the  reason  derived 
from  the  exposure  of  one  soul  to  endless  misery  is 
greater  than  all  earthly  reasons  put  together. 
True  ;  but  mind  you,  I  spoke  of  those  reasons 
which  prompted  men  to  action  in  this  great  enter- 
prise. And  I  say  that  the  creed  of  endless  ruin  is 
forgotten  in  a  great  measure  ;  and  when  men  look 
abroad  upon  the  ruins,  the  wretchedness,  and  the 
woes,  that  drunkenness  produces  in  the  earth,  it  is 
more  the  prostration  of  intellect,  the  misery  and 
poverty  of  families,,  the  worse  than  widowed  wives, 
and  the  cries  of  the  orphan  and  the  outcast,  which 
prompt  to  immediate  action,  than  any  consideration 


78  UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

of  the  miseries  of  eternity.  Endless  misery  is  for- 
gotten, cast  in  the  shade  where  it  should  be,  before 
the  glowing  hells  that  drunkenness  lights  up  around 
our  very  dwellings,  and  over  the  face  of  the  whole 
earth.  Here,  then,  we  see,  that  however  unwilling 
men  may  be  to  admit  it,  it  is  nevertheless  a  truth, 
that  temporal  punishments  and  miseries,  the  law  of 
the  land,  and  the  penitentiary,  exert  a  more  power- 
ful influence  than  the  fear  of  future  torments,  in 
placing  a  restraint  upon  the  evil  propensities  of 
men.  The  reason  is,  that  the  certainty  and  near- 
ness of  punishment,  rather  than  the  severity  of  a 
distant  evil,  is  what  men  want  to  feel,  to  act  as  a 
wholesome  influence  on  their  fears.  And  when 
we  take  into  view  the  fact  that  endless  punishment 
is  so  little  believed,  and  when  it  is,  that  the  obedi- 
ence it  produces  from  a  slavish  fear  is  not  worthy 
of  the  name  of  obedience,  we  consider  our  eighth 
proposition  abundantly  established,  that  the  doctrine 
in  question  is  of  no  good  moral  influence.  But  this 
will  more  plainly  appear  in  the  course  of  our  sub- 
ject in  a  future  lecture. 

IX.  The  doctrine  of  endless  punishment  is  ex- 
pressly contradicted  by  the  Holy  Scriptures.  With 
reference  to  this,  we  must  consider  the  acknowl- 
edged difficulty  of  proving  a  negative.  The  Scrip- 
tures rather  tell  us  what  is  true,  than  labor  to 
explode  what  is  not  true.  And  we  shall  see,  when 
we  come  to  the  affirmative  side,  or  to  the  question, 
What  saith  the  Scripture  ?  that  partialism  will  be 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.  79 

swallowed  up  in  universal  truth.  Nevertheless, 
there  is  one  caution  on  the  negative  side  of  this 
subject  which  is  worthy  of  particular  attention. 
The  Pharisees,  it  is  well  known,  believed  in  the  end- 
less punishment  of  human  souls.  Their  doctrine 
was,  that  the  souls  of  the  wicked,  at  death,  passed 
immediately  into  a  state  of  never-ending  torment. 
Yet  our  Saviour  (Matt.  xvi.  12)  said  to  his  dis- 
ciples, without  any  reservation,  "  Beware  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Pharisees  !  "  —  a  very  singular  cir- 
cumstance, if  that  one  doctrine,  which  is  magnified 
as  the  very  pillar  of  morality  in  our  day,  was  the 
truth  of  the  Almighty.  Why  should  Jesus  caution 
against  the  doctrine  of  the  Pharisees,  so  sweepingly 
and  so  unreservedly,  if  they  held  at  least  one  of 
the  most  important,  soul-saving  truths  ?  They  did, 
unquestionably,  teach  the  doctrine  of  endless 
punishment,  and  yet  our  Saviour  said,  Beware ! 
And  so  say  we.  Beware  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Pharisees ! 

For  further  proof  on  the  negative  side  of  this 
subject,  we  ask  you  to  consider  the  following  pas- 
sages ;  and,  as  the  Scriptures  cannot  be  a  contra- 
diction, let  us  beware,  lest  we  through  ignorance 
make  them  so,  and  dishonor  the  God  who  is  above. 
In  Psalm  ciii.  we  read,  "The  Lord  is  merciful 
and  gracious,  slow  to  anger,  and  plenteous  in 
mercy.  He  will  not  alway  chide  ;  neither  will  he 
keep  his  anger  forever."  Whatever  this  passage 
originally  referred  to,  what  is  it  but  a  plain  refuta- 


80  UNIVERSAL1SM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

tion  of  the  endless  enmity  of  God  ?  Again,  In 
Psalm  Ixxvii.  "  Will  the  Lord  cast  off  forever  ?  and 
will  he  be  favorable  no  more  ?  Is  his  mercy  clean 
gone  forever  ?  doth  his  promise  fail  forevermore  ? 
Hath  God  forgotten  to  be  gracious  ?  Hath  he  in 
anger  shut  up  his  tender  mercies?  And  I  said, 
This  is  my  infirmity."  This  last  sentence  ought  to 
be  engraven  on  the  heart.  When  I  am  told  that 
the  Creator  will  cast  off  forever,  (says  a  benevo- 
lent writer,)  that  he  will  be  favorable  no  more, 
that  his  mercy  will  be  no  longer  exercised,  but 
that  his  anger  will  flame  with  relentless  fury 
throughout  eternity,  I  will  say  to  the  person  who 
addresses  me,  this  is  your  infirmity.  The  mercy 
of  God  is  repeatedly  said  to  endure  forever,  but  as 
for  his  anger,  that  "  endureth  but  for  a  moment." 
These  repeated  declarations  of  the  mercy  and 
clemency  of  Jehovah  cannot  be  true,  if,  throughout 
eternity,  he  refuses  to  be  reconciled  to  his  suffering 
creatures.  But  once  more,  and  this  shall  suffice 
for  the  present,  while  it  is  remembered  that  the 
spirit  of  the  passage  is  what  chiefly  arrests  our 
attention.  Read  it,  ye  who  talk  of  the  ceaseless 
wrath  of  your  Creator,  and  may  it  have  a  practical 
influence  upon  you.  We  quote  it,  without  com- 
ment, from  the  57th  chapter  of  Isaiah.  The  mer- 
ciful Creator  says  to  you,  "  I  will  not  contend  for- 
ever, neither  will  I  be  always  wroth ;  for  the  spirit 
should  fail  before  me,  and  the  souls  which  I  have 
made." 


UNI  VERBALISM   AGAINST   PARTI  ALISM.  81 

We  bring  this  subject  to  a  close.  Partialism  is 
not  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  With  perfect  charity 
for  those  who  entertain  this  theory,  we  have  no 
hesitation  in  saying  that  the  doctrine  of  endless 
punishment  is,  in  the  first  place*  averse  to  the 
whole  nature  of  God.  It  is  opposed  to  the  wisdom, 
power,  justice,  knowledge,  mercy,  love,  and  truth 
of  the  Divine  Being ;  it  is  not  found  in  connection 
with  the  law  of  God ;  it  is  opposed  to  the  very 
nature  of  the  law ;  it  denies,  with  its  connections, 
the  unchangeableness  of  God ;  it  declares  the  in- 
efficacy  of  the  labors,  suffering,  and  death,  and  the 
everlasting  disappointment  and  dissatisfaction,  of 
Jesus  Christ;  it  attaches  more  importance  to  the 
works  of  men  than  to  the  grace  of  God  ;  it  is  what 
charity  never  can  rejoice  in ;  if  true,  with  its 
connections,  it  must  be  true  for  all  mankind  ;  it  is 
of  no  good  moral  influence ;  and  it  is  expressly 
contradicted  by  the  Holy  Scriptures,  We  might 
bring  a  hundred  other  arguments,  but  this  is 
enough*  "  Thou  art  weighed  in  the  balances,  and 
art  found  wanting,"  —  wanting  the  approval  of  our 
reason,  wanting  the  testimony  of  sacred  writ, 
wanting  every  thing  to  make  it  consistent,  and 
nothing  to  make  it  more  inconsistent,  absurd,  and 
monstrous  than  it  now  stands  out,  stripped  of  its 
disguise,  conceived  in  sin,  and  shapen  in  iniquity* 
Let  it  "  go  down  to  the  vile  dust  from  whence  it 
sprung ; "  and  let  all  the  people  say,  Amen* 
8 


LECTURE   III. 

ARGUMENT    FOR    THE    DOCTRINE    OF   UNIVERSAL  SAL- 
VATION* *^' 

Produce  your  cause,  saith  the  Lord;  bring  forth  your 
strong  reasons,  saith  the  King  of  Jacob.  Isaiah  xlL  21. 

WE  come  now  to  the  opposite  theory,  —  to 
Universalism  in  distinction  from  Partialism,  as  the 
characteristic  ultimatum  of  the  divine  government. 

In  a  former  lecture  we  penned  a  few  remarks 
on  the  subject  of  human  reason.  These  were 
rather  in  justification  of  its  use,  in  the  science  of 
theology,  than  on  the  manner  of  its  application. 
We  do  not  say  that  reason  may  be  safely  trusted 
with  regard  to  every  matter  of  divine  revelation. 
We  do  not  say  there  is  no  subject  beyond  the 
cognizance  of  human  faculties,  in  the  ways  of  that 
almighty  Being  with  whom  we  have  to  do.  Far  be 
it.  We  admit  that  there  are  some  things  which, 
in  our  present  and  imperfect  state,  and  perhaps  in 
our  future  state  of  exaltation  and  perfection,  we 
can  never  fully  comprehend.  We  wish  to  treat 
this  subject  candidly.  There  is  the  mode  or  man- 
ner of  the  Deity's  existence  ;  there  is  the  idea  of  a 
cause  uncaused ;  there  is  an  incomprehensible 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM.  83 

eternity  ;  there  is  the  origin  of  evil ;  there  is  divine 
sovereignty  with  human  accountability  ;  there  may 
be  other  things  which,  to  finite,  mortal  man,  never 
can  be  fully  comprehended,  —  must  be  matters  of 
faith  rather  than  of  understanding.  But  this  does 
not  terrify  us.  Give  us  but  the  truth  ;  make  it  man- 
ifest to  our  understandings  —  as  it  can  be  —  that 
there  must  have  been,  and  must  be,  a  God,  and 
we  trouble  not  ourselves  about  the  manner  of  his 
existence.  Far  less  do  we  trouble  ourselves  be- 
cause we  cannot  comprehend  him.  This  would 
be  as  unwise  as  to  doubt  our  own  mental  being 
because  we  cannot  comprehend  the  properties  of 
mind.  Indeed,  man  knows  positively  but  wondrous 
little.  He  cannot  comprehend  himself,  nor  the 
properties  of  the  smallest  molecule  of  matter.  It 
is  almost  literally  true, 

"  We  nothing  know,  but  what  is  marvellous ; 
Yet  what  is  marvellous  we  can 't  believe, 
So  weak  our  reason,  and  so  great  our  God." 

But,  concerning  the  mysteries  of  Providence,  or 
revelation,  there  is  this  distinction  between  things 
that  we  can  and  things  that  we  cannot  reason  on 
conclusively.  We  shall  point  out  this  distinction 
as  it  relates  to  the  economy  of  divine  government 
only,  as  this  is  the  subject  with  which  we  are  now 
alone  concerned.  There  is,  then,  a  distinction 
between  the  means  employed,  and  the  ultimate 
end,  in  the  dispensations  of  the  Deity.  To  make 


84  UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

this  plain,  it  is  frequently  said  that  we  are  incom- 
petent to  reason  on  the  justness  or  the  wisdom  of  the 
endless  misery  of  a  portion  of  our  race,  because 
many  things  of  an  afflictive  nature  do  occur,  in  the 
providence  of  God,  which  we  find  and  own  our- 
selves unable  to  account  for.  But  we  object  to 
this  reasoning,  because  it  confounds  two  things 
which  ever  ought  to  be  kept  separate,  —  means  and 
ends.  A  thousand  events  daily  occur,  in  the  provi- 
dence of  God,  which  we  cannot  comprehend  the 
wisdom  or  the  goodness  of,  just  because  they  are 
the  means  only  for  the  attainment  of  some  end 
which  we  are  wholly  unacquainted  with.  Afflic- 
tions are  sent  upon  us  ;  death  enters  our  dwellings, 
and  tears  from  us  relatives  and  friends ;  what  we 
call  accidents  assail  us*  But  what  are  ail  these 
dispensations  ?  Are  they  only  to  afflict  us,  to  cause 
us  misery  as  an  end  ?  or  are  they  not  rather  a 
means  to  some  end  yet  in  the  future,  and  of  which 
we  know  not  ?  Undoubtedly  the  latter ;  for  we 
are  assured  by  the  plain  reading  of  the  word,  that 
we  are  chastened  "  for  our  profit,"  We  cannot 
reason,  then,  on  these  dispensations,  in  themselves 
considered,  and  come  to  any  correct  conclusion ; 
because  they  are  to  be  considered  as  means  to 
some  end  yet  in  the  future.  But  suppose  they 
were  not  so.  Suppose,  when  you  looked  upon 
that  sick  man,  pale  and  emaciated,  stretched  upon 
his  couch,  and  exercised  with  pain,  you  should 
contemplate  the  suffering  before  you  as  an  end,  or 


UNIVERSAL-ISM    AGAINST   PARTIALISM.  85 

rather  as  an  endless  continuance  of  misery.  Sup- 
pose you  took  him  by  the  hand,  and  smoothed  his 
marble  brow,  and  looked  upon  his  sunken  eye,  and 
tried  to  mitigate  his  pain,  but  could  not  say,  "  My 
friend,  be  of  good  cheer ;  thy  sufferings  will  soon 
be  ended ;  thou  shalt  either  be  restored  to  health, 
or  these,  thine  earthly  sufferings,  will  work  out  for 
thee  a  far  more  exceeding  and  eternal  weight  of 
glory."  No,  nothing  like  this.  There  you  must 
behold  him,  but  not  to  comfort  or  assuage.  There 
you  must  contemplate  his  sufferings,  but  not  his 
restoration  or  deliverance.  No,  his  is  a  protracted 
illness.  Month  after  month,  and  year  after  year, 
must  wear  away,  and  you  must  look  upon  that 
misery  as  an  end,  and  not  a  means  ;  as  a  production 
of  suffering  for  its  own  sake,  and  not  as  an  affliction 
to  be  overruled  for  good.  I  ask  you,  suppose  this 
was  the  case,  could  we  not  reason  on  it  ?  Might 
we  not  ?  Consider  all  these  dispensations  as  ends 
in  the  divine  economy.  Might  we  not  reason  on 
them  ?  Most  assuredly,  with  all  the  safety  in  the 
world.  We  might  then  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  they  were  unjust,  opposed  to  goodness,  and  of 
no  possible  benefit  whatever. 

Now  just  apply  this  reasoning  to  the  subject  of 
our  lectures.  Endless  punishment,  or  rather 
endless  misery,  (for  endless  punishment  might  be 
considered  a  contradiction  in  terms,  punishment 
signifying  correction,  which  it  cannot  be,  if  it  is 
endless ;  endless  misery,  then,  more  properly)  is 
8* 


86  TJNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

not  a  means,  but  an  end,  —  a  final  resting-place  in 
the  government  of  the  Deity,  or  is  so  represented. 
Now  we  may  safely  reason  on  final  ends,  when 
we  cannot  reason  upon  the  means  employed  to 
bring  about  those  ends.  In  the  one  case,  there  is 
a  long  concatenation  of  causes  and  effects,  the 
connection  of  which  to  the  final  end  we  are  wholly 
ignorant  of ;  and  in  the  other  case,  which  is  ours 
at  present,  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  causes  of 
which  we  know  nothing  relating  to  their  dependent 
effects ;  but  we  have  to  do  with  final  effects  only, 
and  upon  which,  as  concerning  their  justice  or 
goodness,  human  reason  is  abundantly  competent 
to  decide.  We  will,  then,  give  in  the  admission 
that  there  are  a  thousand  daily  occurrences  of 
Providence,  the  character  of  which  we  cannot 
reason  on  ;  but  the  reason  is,  because  their  charac- 
ter is  determined  by  the  final  events  to  which 
they  lead.  But  in  the  idea  of  final  ends,  there  is 
nothing,  either  before  or  after,  to  affect  their  char» 
acter  in  the  least ;  and  they  are  proper  subjects  of 
Jiuman  reason. 

Now  it  avails  nothing  to  call  this  doctrine  of 
endless  misery  a  mystery.  There  are,  we  admit, 
some  mysteries  of  Providence ;  but  these  are  in  the 
progressive  measures  of  the  divine  government,  not 
in  the  ends  of  it.  How  unsatisfying,  then,  is  the 
course  pursued  by  many,  who,  when  being  ques- 
tioned on  this  point  of  faith,  affirm  presumptuously 
that  we  cannot  reason  on  it !  Why  not  reason  on 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.  87 

it  ?  We  can  see  precisely  its  character.  There 
is  nothing  hefore  it  or  after  it  to  affect  its  charac- 
ter in  the  least.  We  have  not  got  to  wait  to  see 
whether  it  will  result  in  good  or  not.  There  is  the 
thing  itself,  drawn  out  from  every  thing  else,  its 
character,  as  good  or  evil,  impressed  upon  it,  and 
all  we  have  got  to  do  is  to  read  it.  I  trust  this 
subject  is  now  plain  enough. 

Listen,  then,  to  the  follies  of  those  who  would 
decline  any  discussion  on  the  question  of  endless 
punishment,  to  borrow  that  phrase,  when  viewed 
as  a  final  end  in  the  government  of  the  Almighty. 
They  complain  of  inquisitiveness.  They  talk 
about  carnal  reason.  They  hush  us  up  with  the 
cry  of  mystery  —  mystery  !  They  intimate  a  blas- 
phemous familiarity  with  the  ways  of  the  Deity ! 
They  remind  us  of  our  duty  of  submission.  Heav- 
ens !  and  all  about  what  ?  Why,  about  a  thing 
involved  in  nothing  to  perplex  us  —  of  a  most  de- 
cided character  in  itself —  plain,  palpable,  standing 
out  in  bold  relief  from  every  thing  else  —  not  a 
means  to  any  end  —  nothing  before  or  after  it  to 
affect  its  character  —  of  a  simple,  uncompounded 
nature,  —  an  existence,  in  fact,  in  itself  and  alone, 
either  one  thing  or  the  other ;  and  we  are  not  com- 
petent, with  our  eyes  wide  open,  to  say  what !  If 
this  is  not  a  bold,  unprincipled  presumption  upon 
the  powers  of  human  intellect,  then  we  know  not 
what  is.  O,  it  is  the  weakness  of  the  cause  — 
away  with  all  this  folly  and  pretension  —  it  is  THE 


88  UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

WEAKNESS  OF  THE  CAUSE  —  the  utterly  indefen- 
sible nature  of  this  doctrine  of  the  church,  which 
extorts  this  pretended  modesty,  and  reserve,  and 
child-like  suhmission  on  this  subject.  Do  you  sup- 
pose, Christians,  that  if  there  were  sufficient  rea- 
sons, strong  and  sturdy,  for  the  support  of  this 
sentiment,  that  its  advocates  would  resort  to  such 
subterfuge  to  defend  it  ?  Alas,  no.  They  would 
be  brought  forth  with  all  the  hardihood  and  confi- 
dence of  one  deeply  initiated  into  the  ways  of  the 
Most  High.  They  would  be  extolled  and  lauded 
to  the  skies  as  "  reasons  strong "  and  proofs  de- 
fiatory.  But  now  it  is  manifest,  and  it  is  useless 
to  deny  it,  that,  for  the  want  of  a  sufficiency  in  the 
shape  of  argument  to  defend  this  dogma,  resort 
must  be  had  to  the  cry  of  mystery — carnal  rea- 
son —  inquisitive  blasphemy.  And  a  passage  of 
scripture  is  always  at  hand  for  such  an  emer- 
gency —  "  Great  is  the  mystery  of  godliness  "  — 
which  is  a  sufficient  and  ever  ready  reply  to  all 
our  questionings  and  to  all  our  arguments.  This 
may  do  for  some,  but  it  will  not  do  for  us.  And 
to  us  there  is  nothing  more  evident  than  that  a 
cause  which  needs  such  subterfuge  to  support  it 
must  be  unreasonable  and  false.  We  are  not  of 
this  make.  We  must  call  yet  aloud,  —  "Produce 
your  cause ;  bring  forth  your  strong  reasons." 
And  if  the  advocates  of  this  doctrine  cannot  sup- 
port their  cause  by  reason  and  argument,  we  will 
engage  to  support  ours,  —  to  "  give  an  answer  unto 


TTNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM.  89 

svery  one  that  asketh  a  reason  for  the  hope  that  is 
within  MS." 

While  on  this  subject,  however,  let  us  remember 
that  a  reverse  of  all  the  argument  we  have  ad- 
vanced on  the  opposite  side  of  this  subject,  will 
furnish  argument  for  the  theory  of  universal  and 
3fficient  grace.  The  reader  may  have  done  this 
work  himself.  So  that  our  present  theme  can  be 
but  a  collection  of  some  remaining  reasons  for  the 
embrace  of  an  opposite  and  more  glorious  theory. 

I.  We  begin  with  the  proposition  that  the  doc- 
trine of  universal  and  eternal  salvation  is  the  only 
one  under  heaven  but  what  insults  our  reason  at 
the  very  first  consideration  of  it.  There  are  only 
three  opinions,  relative  to  a  future  final  state,  which 
have  ever  been  received.  These  are,  the  anni- 
hilation of  the  wicked,  and  the  eternal  salvation 
and  glory  of  the  righteous;  the  endless  punish- 
ment of  the  wicked,  and  the  contrary ;  and  the 
universal  holiness  and  happiness  of  Adam's  wide- 
spread race.  There  are,  I  know,  refinements  and 
modifications  of  the  system  of  endless  punish- 
ments ;  but  these  are  the  three  distinctive  opinions, 
and,  in  fact,  the  only  opinions  which  can  be  re- 
ceived with  reference  to  a  final  state.  And  this 
latter,  we  affirm,  is  the  only  doctrine  presented  to 
us  but  what  insults  our  reason  at  the  very  first 
consideration  of  it. 

Nothing  can  be  more  puerile  than  the  idea  of 
annihilation.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  open  to  all 


90  UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

the  objections  which  have  been  before  advanced  in 
these  lectures,  founded  on  the  design  and  fore- 
knowledge of  the  Deity.  It  is  admitted  on  all 
hands,  (except  by  the  Calvinists,  whose  blasphe- 
mous theory  we  determined  to  pass  into  oblivion 
after  a  respectful  notice  in  our  first  lecture,)  that 
the  design  of  the  Deity  was  to  impart  immortal 
happiness  to  all  his  moral  offspring.  Now,  neither 
free  agency  nor  any  thing  else  can  be  involved  to 
oppose  this  design.  Free  agency  did  not  exist 
before  the  creature  who  possesses  it.  Nothing 
existed  on  the  part  of  man,  and  nothing  but  the 
arbitrary  will  of  Deity  on  his  part.  And,  with  a 
design  to  bestow  immortal  blessedness  upon  all  his 
creatures,  he  brings  them  into  existence,  KNOWING 
—  if  it  is  possible  to  design  against  knowledge  — 
that  his  design  will  be  frustrated,  and  he  must  be 
forever  disappointed. 

In  the  next  place,  it  is  little  short  of  blasphemy, 
viewed  in  the  common  apprehension  of  it.  "  The 
doctrine  of  annihilation,"  says  a  just  and  feeling 
writer,  "  supposes  that  by  far  the  greater  part  of 
mankind  were  created  by  a  benevolent  and  holy 
Being,  whose  prescience  foresaw  how  they  would 
act,  —  to  be  vicious  and  die,  to  be  raised  from  the 
dead,  re-organized  or  re-created,  to  be  miserable, 
and  then  to  undergo  a  public  execution,  by  which 
they  would  be  forever  blotted  out  of  this  creation, 
My  brethren,  if  the  fact  be  so,  fix  your  minds  upon 
it.  You  have  often  regarded  with  admiration  that 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.  91 

curious  effect  of  the  divine  power,  the  human  body, 
— the  delicate  structure  of  the  eye  and  the  ear,  the 
nerves  and  brain,  the  veins  and  arteries,  and  the 
various  organs  of  sensation,  respiration,  and  mo- 
tion ;  you  have  contemplated  with  devout  wonder 
the  faculties  of  the  human  mind ;  you  have  ac- 
knowledged with  grateful  satisfaction  that  God  is 
love,  —  that  every  organ,  that  every  power,  both 
of  body  and  mind,  is  an  inlet  to  enjoyment,  and 
that  man  was  formed  in  the  image  of  God,  that  he 
might  be  the  object  of  his  favor  forever.  Contem- 
plate the  scene  which  is  now  to  take  place ;  (that 
is,  at  the  resurrection  of  the  wicked.)  What  a 
process  is  going  on  through  nature !  Myriads  of 
those  beings  are  to  be  raised  from  the  dead  —  that 
is,  re-organized,  re-formed,  or  re-created  —  to  be 
miserable  in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  according  to 
their  degrees  of  guilt,  arid  at  length  to  be  finally 
destroyed  ! "  * 

And  this  is  a  work  to  be  ascribed  to  the  Deity ! 
With  the  idea  of  this  doctrine  in  the  mind,  the 
words  of  Young  have  a  pertinency  and  significancy 
of  meaning  which  can  be  felt  in  no  other  associa- 
tion : 

"  Why  burst  the  barriers  of  my  peaceful  grave? 
Ah,  cruel  death,  that  would  no  longer  save ! 
But  grudged  me  e'en  that  narrow,  dark  abode, 
And  cast  me  out  into  the  wrath  of  God." 

*  Estlin,  quoted  by  Smith  on  "  Divine  Government,"  pp. 
248,  249. 


92  UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PART1ALISM. 

But  even  this  dishonorable  sentiment  is  preferable 
to  the  doctrine  of  never-ceasing  misery.  This 
sentiment  must  take  the  lead  of  all  absurdities  and 
abominations.  It  is  an  unparalleled  and  monstrous 
conception ;  even  atheism  itself,  in  theoretical 
absurdity,  falling  far  below  it.  We  must  say,  so 
far  as  theory  is  concerned,  better  deny  the  being 
of  God,  than  admit  his  existence,  and  ascribe  to 
him  such  an  ungodly  character.  The  impiety 
would  not  be  so  great.  These  are  plain  senti- 
ments ;  but  they  are  penned  in  "  soberness  and 
truth."  We  have  said  that  reason  is  insulted  on 
the  very  first  consideration  of  it.  For  what  does  it 
behold  ?  The  creeds,  and  opinions,  and  vague 
theories  of  the  human  mind  have  cast  an  obscurity 
over  this  subject ;  and  the  clear  mind  is  bewildered 
thus,  or  else  it  would  take  one  thought,  and  spurn 
the  doctrine  forever  away  from  it.  Volumes  have 
been  written  on  the  subjects  of  free  agency,  human 
depravity,  rejection  of  the  offer  of  salvation,  &c. ; 
and  hence  the  mind  is  clogged  among  the  contem- 
plation of  these  things,  and  seldom  gets  so  far  back 
as  to  argue  the  character  of  the  Deity,  independent 
of  the  consideration  of  every  one  of  them.  But 
this  step  must  be  taken,  if  we  would  probe  the 
subject  to  the  very  bottom.  We  must  send  our 
minds  back  before  free  agency  existed,  before 
man's  wickedness  was  known,  before  he  rejected 
the  offer  of  salvation, — yea,  before  all  things  per- 
taining to  this  world,  when  God  alone  existed  in 


ITNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.  93 

his  own  self-sufficiency,  wanting  nothing  to  aug- 
ment his  happiness,  and  there  imagine  him  revolv- 
ing in  his  mind  a  plan  for  introducing  millions  on 
millions  of  intellectual,  moral  beings  into  an  exist- 
ence which  he  KNOWS  will  prove  an  everlasting 
curse  to  them.  Horrid  thought !  Yet  it  will  come. 
It  will  rise  up  from  the  workings  of  our  better 
nature,  to  utter  its  secret  thunder  against  a  system 
so  utterly  appalling.  And,  I  say,  let  it  come. 
Silence  not  these  forcible  remonstrances  of  reason 
against  what  it  cannot,  no,  never  can,  approve. 
As  we  stated  in  a  former  lecture,  "  no  sin  can  be 
taken  into  the  account ;  for  man  had  not  existed. 
Nothing  existed,  and  out  of  nothing  the  Deity  pro- 
duced an  endless  curse"  This  is  reason's  first 
inference,  in  contemplation  of  the  doctrine  in  ques- 
tion. The  thought  is  simple,  the  process  brief, 
and  the  argument  irresistible,  against  the  idea  of 
unceasing  misery.  And  as  the  same  is  true,  in 
kind,  with  regard  to  annihilation,  it  is,  then,  true, 
that  the  doctrine  of  universal,  final  holiness  and 
happiness  is  the  only  one  under  heaven  which  does 
not  insult  our  reason  at  the  very  first  consideration 
of  it.  It  alone  can  supply  the  "  feast  of  reason," 
and,  I  may  add,  "the  flow  of  soul." 

II.  The  doctrine  of  the  Universalist  acknowledges 
no  absolute  evil,  and  declares  that  the  universe  shall 
ultimately  embrace  nothing  but  good.  This  truth, 
indeed,  appears  self-evident,  if  we  admit  the  infi- 
nite goodness  of  the  Deity.  For,  with  this  admis- 

Q 


94  UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PART1ALISM. 

sion,  what  has  the  Deity  to  do  with  evil  as  an  end 
in  the  divine  economy  ?  The  idea  is  as  absurd  as 
to  say  that  infinite  goodness  was  limited,  or  that 
pure  goodness  consisted  partly  of  evil.  Some 
writer  said,  when  writing  on  this  subject,  that  he 
who  doubted  the  existence  of  evil  ought  to  have 
the  jumping  tooth-ache,  or  some  painful  disease. 
This,  however,  is  mere  pertness,  and  not  argument. 
The  tooth-ache  and  the  disease  itself  may  result  in 
good,  although  we  cannot  give  the  how.  At  least, 
no  one,  in  our  present  state  of  ignorance,  can  say 
positively  that  it  does  not.  We  confess  it  is  a 
subject  involved  in  much  obscurity ;  but  there  is 
much  that  we  do  know  upon  it.  That  natural  evil 
results  in  good  is  demonstrable  by  every-day  oc- 
currence. Who  has  not  seen  afflictions  overruled 
for  the  benefit,  and  the  very  great  benefit,  of  the 
sufferer  ?  Every  house  of  suffering  is  a  school  of 
virtue.  Besides,  good  is  generally  known  by  its 
opposite  evil.  But,  while  on  this  subject,  I  choose 
to  give  the  opinions  of  others,  rather  than  any  of 
my  own.  And,  of  all  the  accounts  I  have  ever 
seen  on  this  subject,  I  have  never  met  with  one 
that  embodied  so  much  sound  sense,  and  so  many 
irrefragible  positions,  so  much  pithiness  of  remark, 
and  so  much  eloquence  withal,  and  all  condensed 
in  so  brief  a  space,  as  that  given  by  that  most 
excellent  writer,  Soame  Jenyns,  in  an  old  work  on 
the  Origin  of  Evil.  A  Universalist  he  was  too. 
Read  it,  brother,  and  lay  it  to  heart.  "  Most  of 


UN1VERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM.  95 

the  grievances  attendant  upon  human  nature,"  he 
thinks,  "  may  be  comprehended  under  the  follow- 
ing heads  :  poverty,  labor,  inquietudes  of  mind, 
pains  of  body,  and  death  ;  from  none  of  which,  we 
may  venture  to  affirm,  man  could  ever  have  been 
exempted  so  long  as  he  continued  to  be  man. 
God,  indeed,  might  have  made  us  quite  other 
creatures,  and  placed  us  in  a  world  quite  other- 
wise constituted  ;  but  then  we  had  been  no  longer 
men ;  and,  whatever  beings  had  occupied  our  sta- 
tions .in  the  universal  system,  they  must  have  been 
liable  to  the  same  inconveniences. 

"  Poverty,  for  example,  is  what  all  could  not 
possibly  have  been  exempted  from,  not  only  by 
reason  of  the  fluctuating  nature  of  human  posses- 
sions, but  because  the  world  could  not  subsist  with- 
out it;  for,  had  all  been  rich,  none  could  have 
submitted  to  the  commands  of  another,  or  the 
drudgeries  of  life ;  thence  all  governments  must 
have  been  dissolved,  arts  neglected,  and  lands 
uncultivated,  and  so  an  universal  penury  have 
overwhelmed  all,  instead  of  now  and  then  pinch- 
ing a  few.  Hence,  by  the  by,  appears  the  great 
excellence  of  charity,  by  which  men  are  enabled, 
by  a  particular  distribution  of  the  blessings  and 
enjoyments  of  life,  on  proper  occasions,  to  prevent 
that  poverty  which,  by  a  general  one,  Omnipotence 
itself  could  never  have  prevented  ;  so  that,  by  en- 
forcing this  duty,  God,  as  it  were,  demands  our 
assistance  to  promote  universal  happiness,  and  to 


96  UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

shut  out  misery  at  every  door  where  it  strives  to 
intrude  itself. 

"  Labor,  indeed,  God  might  easily  have  excused 
us  from,  since  at  his  command  the  earth  would 
readily  have  poured  forth  all  her  treasures,  without 
our  inconsiderable  assistance ;  but,  if  the  severest 
labor  cannot  sufficiently  subdue  the  malignity  of 
human  nature,  what  plots  and  machinations,  what 
wars,  rapine,  and  devastation,  what  profligacy  and 
licentiousness,  must  have  been  the  consequences 
of  universal  idleness  !  So  that  labor  ought  only  to 
be  looked  upon  as  a  task  kindly  imposed  upon  us 
by  our  indulgent  Creator,  necessary  to  preserve 
our  health,  our  safety,  and  our  innocence. 

"  Inquietudes  of  mind  cannot  be  prevented  with- 
out first  eradicating  all  our  inclinations  and  pas- 
sions, —  the  winds  and  tides  that  preserve  the  great 
ocean  of  human  life  from  perpetual  stagnation. 
So  long  as  men  have  pursuits,  they  must  have 
disappointments ;  and  whilst  they  have  disappoint- 
ments, they  must  be  disquieted ;  whilst  they  are 
injured,  they  must  be  inflamed  with  anger;  and 
whilst  they  see  cruelties,  they  must  be  melted  with 
pity ;  whilst  they  perceive  danger,  they  must  be 
sensible  to  fear ;  and  whilst  they  behold  beauty, 
they  must  be  enslaved  by  love :  nor  can  they  be 
exempted  from  the  various  anxieties  attendant  on 
these  various  and  turbulent  passions.  Yet,  without 
them,  we  should  be  undoubtedly  less  happy  and 
less  safe  ;  for  without  anger  we  should  not  defend 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    ^AVr^LjB^  '*  ~  97  fy^. 

\  C.  *  .        '    43  O  -. 

ourselves ;  and  without  pity  we 

others ;  without  fear  we  should  nor 

lives ;  and  without  love  they  would  not  be   we 

preserving. 

"  Pains  of  body  are,  perhaps,  but  the  necessary 
consequences  of  the  union  of  material  and  spiritual 
essences  ;  for  matter  being  by  nature  divisible, 
when  endued  with  sensibility,  must  probably  be 
affected  by  pains  and  pleasures,  by  its  different 
modifications;  wherefore,  to  have  been  freed  from 
our  sufferings,  we  must  have  been  deprived  of  all 
our  sensual  enjoyments,  —  a  composition  by  which 
few,  surely,  would  be  gainers.  Besides,  the  pains 
of  our  bodies  are  necessary,  to  make  us  continually 
mindful  of  their  preservation  ;  for  what  numberless 
lives  would  be  lost  in  every  trifling  pursuit,  or  flung 
away  in  ill-humor,  was  the  piercing  of  a  sword  no 
more  painful  than  the  tickling  of  a  feather ! 

"  Death,  the  last  and  most  dreadful  of  all  evils, 
is  so  far  from  being  one,  that  it  is  the  infallible 
cure  of  all  others. 

'  To  die  is  landing  on  some  silent  shore, 
Where  billows  never  beat,  nor  tempests  roar : 
Ere  well  we  feel  the  friendly  stroke,  't  is  o'er.' 

For,  abstracted  from  the  sickness  and  suffering 
usually  attending  it,  it  is  no  more  than  the  expi- 
ration of  that  term  of  life  God  was  pleased  to 
bestow  upon  us,  without  any  claim  or  merit  on 
our  part.  But,  was  it  an  evil  ever  so  great,  it 
could  be  remedied  but  by  one  much  greater, 


98  UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

which  is  by  living  forever ;  by  which  means  our 
wickedness,  unrestrained  by  the  prospect  of  a 
future  state,  would  grow  so  insupportable,  our 
sufferings  so  intolerable  by  perseverance,  and  our 
pleasures  so  tiresome  by  repetition,  that  no  being 
in  the  universe  could  be  so  completely  miserable 
as  a  species  of  immortal  men.  We  have  no  rea- 
son, therefore,  to  look  upon  death  as  an  evil,  or  to 
fear  it  as  a  punishment,  even  without  any  supposi- 
tion of  a  future  life ;  but,  if  we  consider  it  as  a 
passage  to  a  more  perfect  state,  or  a  remove  only 
in  an  eternal  succession  of  still  improving  states — 
for  which  we  have  the  strongest  reasons  —  it  will 
then  appear  a  new  favor  from  the  divine  munifi- 
cence ;  and  a  man  must  be  as  absurd  to  repine  at 
dying,  as  a  traveller  would  be,  who  proposed  to 
himself  a  delightful  tour  through  various  unknown 
countries,  to  lament  that  he  cannot  take  up  his 
residence  at  the  first  dirty  inn  which  he  baits  at 
on  the  road.  The  instability  of  human  life,  or  the 
hasty  changes  of  its  successive  periods,  of  which 
we  so  frequently  complain,  are  no  more  than  the 
necessary  progress  of  it  to  this  necessary  conclu- 
sion ;  and  at  last  death  opens  to  us  a  new  prospect, 
from  which  we  shall  probably  look  back  upon  the 
diversions  and  occupations  of  this  world  with  the 
same  contempt  we  do  now  upon  our  tops  and 
hobby-horses,  and  with  the  same  surprise  that  they 
could  ever  so  much  entertain  or  engage  us."  * 

*  Origin  of  Evil,  by  Soame  Jenyns,  pp.  64—71. 


. 

UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST   PARTIALISM.  99 

We  ask  not  the  reader  to  adopt  every  idea  in  this 
extract,  but  we  do  ask  him  to  consider  it  well,  for 
it  is  worthy  of  it. 

These  remarks,  however,  have  a  general  refer- 
ence to  natural  evil.  Speaking  of  moral  evil,  the 
same  writer  says :  "  And,  to  render  these  punish- 
ments consistent  with  goodness,  they  must  not  only 
be  proportioned  to  their  crimes,  but  also  in  some 
way  necessary  to  universal  good  ;  for  no  creatures 
can  be  called  out  of  their  primitive  nothing  by  an 
all-wise  and  benevolent  Creator,  to  be  losers  by 
their  existence,  or  to  be  made  miserable  for  no 
beneficial  end,  even  by  their  own  misbehavior : 
so  that  all  future  misery,  as  well  as  all  present, 
must  be  subservient  to  happiness ;  or  otherwise  in- 
finite power,  joined  with  infinite  goodness,  would 
have  prevented  both  vice  and  punishment."  * 

That  moral  evil,  and  all  moral  evil,  does  result 
in  good,  and  is  not  therefore  properly  evil,  is  ad- 
mitted, and  even  contended  for,  strange  as  it  may 
seem,  by  believers  in  endless  and  terrible  damna- 
tion. Jonathan  Edwards  thus  writes  upon  the  sub- 
ject :  "  God  does  not  will  sin  as  sin,  or  for  the  sake 
of  any  thing  evil,"  but  "  for  the  sake  of  the  great 
good  that  by  his  disposal  shall  be  the  conse- 
quence." t  Again,  "  What  is  aimed  at  [that  is, 
in  the  permission  of  moral  evil]  is  good,  and  good 

*  Origin  of  Evil,  by  Soame  Jenyns,  p.  85. 
t  Edwards  on  the  Will,  p.  343. 


100         UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

is  the  actual  issue,  in  the  final  result  of  things."  * 
Again,  he  quotes  with  approbation  from  Turnbull : 
"  If  the  Author  and  Governor  of  all  things  be  in- 
finitely perfect,  then  whatever  is,  is  right ;  of  all 
possible  systems  he  has  chosen  the  lest ;  and  con- 
sequently there  is  no  absolute  evil  in  the  uni- 
verse." t  And  yet  there  is,  according  to  this 
author,  a  boundless,  bottomless,  endless  pit  of  evil ! 
How  moral  evil  results  in  good,  is  a  question 
which  we,  in  the  present  place,  have  not  the  time 
to  answer,  except  that  it  tends  to  correct  itself,  by 
the  pains  which  it  inflicts.  Admitting  that  moral 
evil  was  necessary  in  order  to  the  more  perceptible 
existence  of  moral  virtue,  and  it  may  not  only  be 
seen  to  result  in  good,  but  that  goodness  itself  de- 
pends upon  it  for  its  existence.  How  many  times 
have  folly  and  imprudence  proved  the  foundation 
of  future  wisdom  and  prudence  !  How  many  a 
notable  act  of  wickedness  has  so  wrought  upon  the 
mind,  as  to  give  rise  to  the  successful  resolution  of 
future  rectitude  !  Every  observer  of  the  world 
must  have  noticed  instances  where  base  and  profli- 
gate youth  have,  from  the  very  evils  of  their  de- 
pravity, determined  on  a  future  reformation,  and 
become  men  of  transcendental  excellence  and 
worth,  far  outstripping  those  who,  from  their 
youth,  have  pursued  the  even  tenor  of  their  way  in 
a  mediocrity  of  virtue. 

*  Edwards  on  the  Will,  p.  347.  t  Ibid.  p.  342. 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.         101 

We  hope  we  shall  never  be  accused  of 
plagiarism,  even  if  we  do  not  give  the  quotation 
marks  for  the  idea  contained  in  the  last  sentence. 
We  believe  it  belongs  to  Dr.  Chalmers.  We  have 
looked  for  it  an  hour,  and  cannot  find  it ;  and  now, 
for  the  life  of  us,  we  cannot  tell  whether  it  belongs 
to  the  doctor,  or  whether  it  is  any  body's  but  our 
own.  It  got  into  our  mind  somehow,  and  we  give 
it  to  the  reader  for  what  it  is  worth. 

But  to  compensate  the  doctor,  if  that  should 
happen  to  be  his,  here  is  one  which  is  his,  and  for 
which  we  refer  to  the  volume  and  the  page.  Be 
it  remembered,  that  we  have  said  that  moral  evil 
results  in  good  by  an  inherent  tendency  to  correct 
and  destroy  itself.  Be  it  also  remembered,  that 
Dr.  Thomas  Chalmers  was  an  eminent  defender  of 
the  endless  perpetuity  of  sin.  Yet,  if  we  mistake 
not,  we  have  caught  him  in  glorious  doubts  of  a 
God -dishonoring  faith.  Speaking  of  this  tendency 
in  vice  to  destroy  itself,  he  says,  "  At  all  events, 
whatever  reason  there  may  be  to  fear  that,  in  the 
future  arrangements  of  nature  and  providence, 
both  virtue  and  vice  will  be  capable  of  immortality, 
we  might  gather  from  what  passes  under  our  eyes, 
in  this  rudimental  and  incipient  stage  of  existence, 
that  even  with  our  present  constitution,  virtue  alone 
is  capable  of  a  blissful  immortality.  For  malice 
and  falsehood  carry  with  them  the  seeds  of  their 
own  wretchedness,  if  not  of  their  own  destruction. 
[Why  that  if  there  ?  ]  Only  grant  the  soul  to  be 


102         UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

imperishable  ;  and,  if  the  character  of  the  governor 
is  to  be  gathered  from  the  final  issues  of  the  gov- 
ernment over  which  he  presides,  it  says  much  for 
the  moral  character  of  him  who  framed  us ;  that, 
unless  there  be  an  utter  reversal  of  the  nature 
which  himself  hath  given,  then,  in  respect  to  the 
power  of  conferring  enjoyment,  or  of  maintaining 
the  soul  in  its  healthiest  and  happiest  mood,  it  is 
righteousness  alone  which  endureth  forever,  and 
charity  alone  which  never  faileth."  *  We  confess, 
there  is  a  little  evasive  ambiguity  in  -this.  The 
author  talks  about  virtue  alone  being  capable  of  a 
blissful  immortality ;  as  though  vice  might  be 
capable  of  a  miserable  one.  He  also  says,  unless 
there  be  an  utter  reversal  of  our  whole  nature, 
then,  in  respect  to  maintaining  the  soul  in  its 
healthiest  and  happiest  mood,  it  is  righteousness 
alone  which  endureth  forever ;  as  though,  in 
respect  to  keeping  the  soul  in  an  unhealthy  and 
unhappy  state,  vice  too  might  endure  forever. 
But  then  he  is  careful  to  state,  "  Whatever  reason 
there  may  be  to  FEAR  that  both  virtue  and  vice 
may  be  capable  of  immortality,"  as  though  it  was 
fear  alone,  and  not  an  undoubted  belief.  But  why 
fear  such  a  thing,  when,  in  reference  to  the  present 
state,  he  begs  hard  for  the  acknowledgement  that 
vice  carries  in  it  the  "  seeds  of  its  own  destruc- 
tion" and  that,  "  while  benevolence,  that  great 

*  Chalmers'  Natural  Theology,  vol,  i.  pp.  378,  379. 


UN1VERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.          103 

conservative  principle  of  being,  has  in  it  a  principle 
conservative  of  itself,  as  well  as  its  objects,  the  out- 
breakings  of  evil  are  but  partial  and  TEMPORA- 
RY?"* Now,  if  this  is  the  case,  then,  as  the 
doctor  himself  says,  in  the  future  state  also,  "  Un- 
less there  be  an  utter  reversal  of  the  principles  of 
nature  which  God  himself  hath  given,"  it  must  be, 
absolutely  and  exclusively,  "  righteousness  alone 
which  endureth  forever,  and  charity  alone  which 
never  faileth  !  "  And  is  there  such  an  utter  rever- 
sal ?  Does  the  doctor  himself  contend  for  it  ?  He 
may,  but  that  will  not  undo  what  he  has  here  inti- 
mated. He  has  told  us,  in  the  first  place,  that  he 
only  fears  it,  while  the  present  constitution  of 
human  nature  is  against  it ;  arid,  in  the  next  place, 
on  page  404  of  the  same  volume,  he  supposes  that 
"  the  EXISTING  CONSTITUTION  of  man,  and  his 
existing  habits,  shall  be  borne  with  him  to  the  land 
of  eternity  !  "  Well  done,  doctor.  Now  if  thou 
hast  not  given  us  pretty  good  proof  of  the  undoubt- 
ed character  of  thy  faith  in  the  endless  perpetuity 
of  sin,  and  pretty  good  proof  how  undemolishable  it 
is,  according  to  thine  own  showing,  then  we  can- 
not hope  that  thy  departed  spirit  will  ever  make  a 
more  successful  attempt.  We  leave  thee  here. 
"  Great  men  are  not  always  wise,"  and  boys  some- 
times can  see  it. 

We  must  bring  this  subject  to  a  conclusion.     If 

*  Natural  Theology,  vol.  i.  p.  378. 


104         UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

we  see,  in  the  present  life,  how  many  evils,  both 
natural  and  moral,  may  and  do  result  in  good, 
and  are  not,  therefore,  absolute  evils,  then,  with 
reference  to  a  future  state,  the  same  may,  and,  by 
the  perfections  of  God,  must,  hold  true,  to  his 
glory,  and  the  good  of  a  glorious  and  entire  uni- 
verse. What  a  foul  blot  would  it  be  upon  that 
universe,  —  a  final  state  of  absolute  and  unmixed 
evil  !  What  in  vice  and  irreligion  more  shocking 
and  abhorrent !  On  the  contrary,  what  in  religion 
more  beautiful  than  the  whole  amplitude  of  the 
moral  universe  regenerated  into  purity  and  bliss ! 
Amen,  my  soul,  adore  that  God,  who,  to  adopt  the 
philosophic  language  of  the  poet, 

*     *     "  Beholding,  in  the  sacred  light 
Of  his  essential  reason,  all  the  shapes 
Of  swift  contingence,  all  successive  ties 
Of  action,  propagated  through  the  sum 
Of  possible  existence  —  he  at  once, 
Down  the  long  series  of  eventful  time, 
So  fixed  the  dates  of  being  —  so  disposed, 
To  every  living  soul  of  every  kind, 
The  field  of  motion,  and  the  hour  of  rest, 
That  all  conspired  to  his  supreme  design,  — 

To  UNIVERSAL  GOOD  !  " 

III.  The  doctrine  of  universal  and  eternal  holi- 
ness and  happiness  harmonizes  all  the  attributes  of 
God.  We  shall  not  here  enter  into  a  lengthy 
argument.  It  was  shown,  in  our  first  lecture,  that 
the  opposite  doctrine  was  opposed  to  all  the  divine 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.          105 

attributes  ;  and  in  that  argument  we  received  the 
opposite  impression  that  the  doctrine  we  now  ad- 
vocate harmonized  them  all.  It  allows  to  the 
Deity  goodness  to  suggest,  wisdom  to  devise, 
knowledge  to  know  or  see,  and  power  to  execute, 
the  complete  success  of  a  plan  for  the  salvation 
and  redemption  of  all  created  intelligences.  And, 
of  course,  truth,  mercy,  and  love,  must  coincide 
with  it. 

But  what  we  now  allude  to  more  particularly, 
hy  harmonizing  the  divine  attributes,  is  the  justice 
and  mercy  of  the  Deity,  which,  hy  popular  theolo- 
gy, are  so  strangely  and  discordantly  at  variance. 
Those  who  advocate  the  final  undoing  of  the 
wicked  have  no  hesitation  in  admitting  that  the 
mercy  of  God  would,  in  itself  considered,  extend 
salvation  to  the  entire  race  of  man  ;  and  it  is  only 
justice  that  must  forever  prevent  an  accomplish- 
ment so  infinitely  desirable.  We  have,  now,  an 
idea  to  present  here  which  we  never  saw  sug- 
gested before,  but  which  weighs  very  much  in  our 
mind,  against  the  conclusion  which  the  rejectors  of 
our  doctrine  would  draw,  even  admitting  their 
premises  true,  viz.  that  justice,  against  mercy, 
demands  the  endless  condemnation  of  the  sinner. 
Consider,  then,  that  mercy  wants  to  save,  justice 
wants  to  damn.  These  are  both  essential  and 
infinite  attributes  of  Deity.  Now  what  is  to  be 
done  ?  These  Christians  say,  let  justice  be  exe- 
cuted. But  why  so  ?  Why  so,  any  more  than  to 
10 


106         TTNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PAHTIALISM. 

let  mercy  be  extended  ?  Both  are  infinite  attri- 
butes ;  both,  therefore,  have  infinite  desires.  And 
why  should  one  yield  to  another  ?  If  justice  is 
executed,  then  mercy  will  go  unsatisfied,  and  vice 
versa.  The  idea  I  have  is  this  :  both  being  in- 
finite attributes,  and  both,  therefore,  having  infinite 
desires,  if  these  desires  are  crossed,  one  demanding 
one  thing,  and  another  longing  for  its  opposite, 
then,  for  all  I  can  see,  there  can  be  no  action  at 
all.  Neither  justice  can  be  executed,  nor  mercy 
extended.  Neither  salvation  nor  damnation  can  be 
effected.  And  hence  we  are  driven  to  this  absurd 
conclusion,  —  that  the  Deity  must  remain  in  an 
eternal  indecision,  and  neither  one  thing  nor  the 
other  can  be  done.  I  know  this  conclusion  is 
absurd,  but  it  is  one  to  which  we  are  absolutely 
driven  from  absurd  and  inconsistent  premises ; 
viz.  that  mercy  wants  to  save,  and  justice  wants 
to  damn.  It  will  avail  nothing  here,  to  free  from 
this  difficulty,  to  say  that  justice  must  damn,  but 
that  it  ivould  save  if  it  could.  For,  in  the  first 
place,  this  would  set  justice  itself  at  eternal  oppo- 
sition, the  same  as  the  two  attributes  are ;  and 
nothing  in  this  case  could  be  done,  unless  justice, 
divided  against  itself,  should  half  unite  with  the 
whole  of  mercy  *  and  so  the  world  be  saved  in 
spite  of  it !  In  the  second  place >  we  can  say  the 
same  of  mercy,  —  that  it  must  save,  were  it  not  for 
justice  ;  surely  it  must.  "  Ah  !  "  says  the  ob- 
jector, "  it  must,  were  it  not  for  justice.  Our  case 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST   PARTIALISM.          107 

is  stronger,  then.  Justice  must  damn  alone;  it 
must,  despite  of  mercy  ;  it  must,  of  right."  We 
tell  you,  then,  that  mercy  must  save  alone  ;  it  must, 
despite  of  justice;  it  must,  of  EIGHT.  And  if  right 
is  the  principle  which  invests  justice  with  such 
absolute  demands,  surely,  the  demands  of  mercy 
are  equally  urgent,  for  it  is  infinitely  right  that 
mercy  should  be  extended  when  suffering  of  such 
intensity  exists.  Here,  then,  we  have  driven  you 
to  the  point.  Here  are  two  infinite  musts,  then, 
so  to  speak,  as  well  as  two  infinite  desires.  And 
we  challenge  any  man  to  prove  that  infinite  justice 
has  any  greater  claim  of  evil  than  infinite  mercy 
has  of  good.  Both  have  infinite  desires  and  in- 
finite claims.  Now  it  is  a  principle  in  philosophy, 
that  equal  forces  neutralize  each  other.  And  if 
two  infinite  desires,  or  claims,  are  opposed  to  each 
other,  they  are  neutralized,  and  neither  can  act  at 
all.  So  much  for  this  opinion  of  two  discordant 
attributes  of  God.  Instead  of  proving  what  its 
advocates  want  to  prove  —  that  justice  must  be  ex- 
cuted,  to  the  sacrifice  of  mercy — it  proves  that 
neither  justice  nor  mercy  can  act,  that  neither 
salvation  nor  damnation  can  be  administered,  and 
that,  consequently,  the  Deity  must  remain  in  an 
eternal  indecision,  halting  "  between  two  opinions."!' 
How  impiously  absurd  !  • 

But  the  doctrine  which  we  espouse  avoids  this 
inconsistency.  It  maintains  that  justice  of  itself  — 
justice,  as  much  as  mercy  —  demands  the  good,  and 


108         UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PART1ALISM. 

only  the  good,  of  all  the  subjects  of  its  adminis- 
tration. "  We  know  of  no  God  who  is  just  to  the 
sacrifice  of  his  mercy,  or  merciful  to  the  sacrifice 
of  his  justice.  The  God  we  worship  is  at  once 
4  a  just  God  and  a  Saviour.'  "  Goodness  and  justice 
are  the  same  in  purpose.  Goodness  requires  as 
much  punishment  for  sin  as  justice.  They  do  in- 
deed differ  in  their  manifestations,  and  so  pass  by 
a  different  name.  But  if  that  is  justice  which  pun- 
ishes for  the  good  of  a  moral  being,  so  also  is  it 
goodness.  And  the  punishment  which  justice  in- 
flicts is  the  greatest  blessing  which,  under  existing 
circumstances,  could  possibly  be  bestowed.  "  Jus- 
tice, then,  is  so  far  from  being  incompatible  with 
goodness,  that  it  is  the  highest  goodness,  directed 
by  the  most  perfect  wisdom."  We  repeat  the 
proposition,  that  this  doctrine  harmonizes  ail  the 
attributes  of  God. 

IV.  This  theory  also  renders  all  the  commands 
of  God  consistent.  The  sum  of  all  the  divine 
commands  is  embraced  in  this :  "  Thou  shalt  love 
the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy  heart ;  and  thy 
neighbor  as  thyself."  These  commands  are  im- 
perative on  all  mankind.  But  commands,  to  be 
imperative,  must  be  consistent.  They  must  be  in 
accordance  with  our  moral  nature,  and  what  we 
can  rationally  obey.  But  the  doctrine  of  endless 
punishment,  founded  on  the  endless  enmity  of  God, 
renders  them  utterly  inconsistent,  and  what  we 
cannot  rationally  obey.  God  is  represented  to  be 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.          109 

filled  with  hatred  to  the  habitual  violaters  of  his 
law  ;  yet,  notwithstanding,  a  command  is  obligatory 
on  these  transgressors  to  love  the  Lord  their  God 
with  all  their  hearts.  We  would  not  cavil  upon 
unimportant  points,  but  here  is  a  point  of  the  ut- 
most importance  to  be  noticed.  What  in  reality  is 
it  but  an  absurd  and  inconsistent  command  to  love 
hatred  1  There  could  not  be  a  more  direct  con- 
tradiction. I  know  it  is  said  that  all  have  sufficient 
reason  to  love  the  Creator,  for  his  daily  blessings 
are  scattered  with  a  rich  profusion  on  the  vilest  of 
the  vile.  But  that  is  not  the  point  in  the  argument. 
It  is  not  these  blessings  which  we  are  commanded 
to  love,  but  God  who  gives  them.  And  if,  not- 
withstanding these  blessings,  he  glows  with  un- 
bounded hatred  towards  even  the  boldest  trans- 
gressors, how  can  that  portion  of  mankind  be  con- 
sistently called  upon  to  love  him  ?  They  could 
not,  manifestly,  love  such  a  being,  unless  they 
could  love  hatred.  And  this  is  a  direct  contradic- 
tion both  in  ideas  and  terms. 

Indeed,  it  is  not  pretended  that  any  now  love  a 
being  who  is  filled  with  hatred  to  them,  for  that 
very  circumstance  of  their  love  is  considered  proof 
enough  that  God  loves  them.  But  how,  in  the 
name  of  reason,  could  they  first  love  him  while 
yet  he  was  filled  with  hatred  ?  It  was  not  God 
who  changed  first,  according  to  this  doctrine.  He 
remained  in  hatred  (he  might  have  had  the  love  of 
benevolence,  but  still  it  was  such  a  love  as  would 


110         UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

damn  them  through  eternity  ;  and  no  man  could 
love  that;  —  he  remained  in  hatred,  then,)  until 
they  loved  him.  Consequently  they  had  to  love 
him  while  in  hatred  ;  that  is,  had  to  love  hatred  in 
order  to  get  him  to  love  them  !  We  are  sickened 
with  the  absurdities  of  this  doctrine.  It  is  plain  to 
reason  itself  that  the  command  is  thus  as  incon- 
sistent as  it  can  be. 

But,  again,  with  reference  to  the  second  com- 
mand—  love  to  our  neighbor,  and  even  to  our 
enemies  —  what  shocking  inconsistency  is  here! 
Why  love  our  enemies,  if  God  does  not  love  his  ? 
The  command  is,  "  Love  your  enemies,  bless 
them  that  curse  you,"  &c.  ;  and  the  reason  is 
given,  "That  ye  may  be  the  children  of  your 
Father  in  heaven,"  whose  goodness  is  alike  impar- 
tially extended  to  "  the  evil  and  the  good,  the  just 
and  the  unjust."  Now  this  is  reasonable.  We 
may  consistently  be  called  upon  to  love  our  ene- 
mies if  God  loves  his,  and  is  "  kind  even  to  the 
evil  and  unthankful."  But  look  at  the  opposite 
doctrine.  By  this  we  are  required  to  love  our 
enemies  while  God  hates  them.  How,  then,  can 
we  imitate  God  ?  Indeed,  I  am  disposed  to  press 
the  conclusion  that,  if  God  hates  his  enemies,  we 
ought  also  to  hate  ours.  For  "  shall  mortal  man 
be  more  just  than  God  ?  "  But,  with  a  God  of 
love  instead  of  hatred,  the  commands  are  all  con- 
sistent. We  can  love  our  neighbors,  and  even  our 
enemies,  if  God  has  this  affection  for  them ; 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIAL1SM.          Ill 

whereas  the  opposite  doctrine  is  crowded  with 
practical  no  less  than  with  theoretical  absurdities, 

V.  The  doctrine  of  universal  salvation  recog- 
nizes the  parental  relationship  of  God  to  all  his 
moral  offspring.  This  truth  is  indeed  recognized 
by  another  sect  in  Christendom,  whose  members 
strongly  insist  upon  it,  but  we  must  tell  them  — 
many  of  them  — *•  that  they  do,  nevertheless,  deny 
the  necessary  consequences  which  result  from  such 
a  truth,  by  representing  the  principles  upon  which 
the  Creator  governs  as  utterly  inconsistent  with  a 
father's  character.  The  character  of  a  father  is 
too  well  known  to  be  ascribed  to  a  being  who  in- 
flicts an  endless  evil  upon  any  of  his  children. 
The  principle  would  dishonor  an  earthly  father, 
and  it  is  infinitely  dishonorable  to  God. 

In  maintaining  our  sentiments,  however,  on  the 
moral  government  of  God,  we  have  frequently 
been  accused  of  laboring  under  a  great  error ; 
that  of  bringing  down  the  character  of  the  incom- 
prehensible God  to  a  comparison  with  an  earthly 
father,  —  a  frail,  weak  worm  of  the  dust.  And 
what  presumption  is  this !  says  one  ;  for,  are  not 
God's  ways  higher  than  our  ways,  and  his  thoughts 
than  our  thoughts  ?  "  As  the  heavens  are  higher 
than  the  earth,  so  are  his  ways  higher  than  our 
ways,  and  his  thoughts  than  our  thoughts." 

All  this  we  readily  admit.  But  this  is  a  very 
unfortunate  allusion  for  the  objector.  Did  not 
Christ  institute  the  same  comparison  ?  "  If  a  son 


112         UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM, 

ask  bread  of  any  of  you  that  is  a  father,  will  he 
give  him  a  stone  ?  or,  if  he  ask  a  fish,  will  he,  for 
a  fish,  give  him  a  serpent  ?  or,  if  he  shall  ask  an 
egg,  will  he,  for  an  egg,  offer  him  a  scorpion  ?  If 
ye,  then,  being  evil,  know  how  to  give  good  gifts 
unto  your  children,  how  much  more  shall  your 
heavenly  Father  give  the  Holy  Spirit  to  them  that 
ask  him  ? "  Here  the  same  comparison  is  insti- 
tuted, and  the  imperfection,  too,  of  the  earthly 
father  expressly  alluded  to  :  "  If  ye,  then,  BEING 
EVIL,''  &c. ;  which  circumstance,  instead  of  destroy- 
ing the  propriety  of  the  comparison,  the  Saviour 
makes  use  of  to  strengthen  it,  by  arguing,  that,  if 
an  earthly  father,  a  frail,  weak  worm  of  the  dust, 
as  the  objector  says,  is  ever  willing  to  give  good 
gifts  unto  his  children,  BIUCH  MORE  shall  a  God  of 
infinite  perfection  govern  his  children  upon  the 
pure  principles  of  parental  love. 

After  such  an  example  by  Christ  himself,  wrhy 
should  we  be  objected  to  for  instituting  the  same 
comparison,  on  the  untenable  ground  that  God's 
ways  are  higher  than  our  ways  ?  For  this  very 
circumstance  is  a  reason  why  we  should  expect 
hirn  to  be  governed  by  the  same  principles  of 
paternal  kindness  as  those  which  actuate  an  earthly 
father ;  being  infinitely  above  in  goodness,  accord- 
ing to  the  testimony  of  Christ  himself.  And  from 
the  quotation  we  have  made  we  learn  this  instruc- 
tive lesson,  —  that,  until  the  heart  of  an  earthly 
parent  can  become  so  steeled  to  the  impressions 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST   PARTIALISM.          113 

of  humanity  as  to  offer  a  stone  to  his  children 
when  they  ask  for  bread,  we  may  expect  God,  the 
great  Parent  of  the  universe,  to  conduct  himself  in 
a  manner  which  best  comports  with  a  Father's 
love.  We  know  his  ways  are  higher  than  our 
ways  ;  but,  let  us  ask,  are  they  so  much  worse  ? 
Are  they  not  infinitely  better  ? 

But,  says  one,  does  God  sustain  the  relationship 
of  Father  to  all  mankind  ?  Are  we  not  plainly 
told  that  some  are  the  children  of  the  devil,  and 
the  lusts  of  their  father  they  will  do  ?  Yes  ;  but 
is  there  a  man  or  a  woman,  who  is  not  a  proper  sub- 
ject of  derision,  who  supposes  that  any  human  being 
is  really  a  child  of  an  evil  spirit,  related  to  him  by 
a  tie  of  consanguinity  ?  But  if  this  is  not  the 
meaning  of  the  passage,  what  is  ?  Plainly,  that 
some  men  are  characteristically  the  children  of 
Satan,  or  the  adversary.  The  reason  is  assigned 
why  they  were  the  children  of  the  devil,  because 
they  were  subservient  to  his  evil  desires.  While, 
then,  some  men  are  characteristically  the  children 
of  the  adversary,  all  men  are  the  children  of  God 
by  creation,  and  it  is  this  act  of  giving  leing  to  a 
creature  that  creates  the  relationship  of  Father. 
"  Have  we  not  all  one  Father  ?  "  says  the  prophet. 
"  Hath  not  one  God  created  us?  "  Again,  he  is 
styled  the  "Father  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh;" 
and  the  apostle  says  there  is  "  one  God  and  Father 
of  all ; "  and,  in  that  ever  memorable  prayer  of 


114         UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

our  Lord,  all  men  are  taught  to  address  their  Cre- 
ator by  the  endearing  name  of  Father. 

But  it  Is  contended  that  sin  destroys  the  relation- 
ship. This  is  a  sound  position  indeed !  Sin  de- 
stroy 4he  relationship  !  Let  us  ask,  does  virtue 
constitute  the  relationship  ?  No,  nothing  but  the 
act  of  creation.  The  child  is  related  to  the  father 
before  either  obedience  or  disobedience  exists. 
As,  then,  obedience  does  not  constitute  the  relation- 
ship, it  is  absurd  to  say  that  disobedience  can 
destroy  it. 

Be  it  now  remembered  that  they  were  wicked 
Jews  to  whom  the  language  was  addressed,  "  Ye 
are  of  your  father,  the  devil,"  Now,  to  wicked 
Jews,  also,  is  the  language,  "  Turn,  O  backsliding 
children,  for  I  am  married  unto  you,"  And,  again, 
*'  Hear,  O  heavens,  and  give  ear,  O  earth,  for  the 
Lord  hath  spoken :  I  have  nourished  and  brought 
up  children,  and  they  have  rebelled  against  me." 
Thus  the  Creator  addresses  the  backsliding  and 
rebellious  objects  of  his  care  by  the  endearing 
name  of  children.  Sin,  then,  does  not  destroy  the 
relationship. 

But  it  is  still  insisted  that  those  are  called  chil- 
dren in  a  special  manner  who  have  imbibed  the 
spirit  of  the  gospel.  "  As  many  as  are  led  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  they  are  the  sons  of  God."  We  have 
no  objection  to  this,  nor  do  we  see  how  it  can  form 
any  rational  objection  against  the  conclusion  we 
aim  to  establish.  For,  if  God  is  the  Father  of 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM.          115 

mankind  by  creation,  and  has  declared  his  govern- 
ment as  conducted  on  the  principles  of  that  pater- 
nity, this  is  the  strongest  sense  in  which  he  can  be 
our  Father,  and  the  very  government  which  must 
disprove  the  doctrine  we  oppose.  We  may  be  the 
children  of  God  in  a  special  manner,  by  imbibing 
his  spirit,  and  "  following  after  him  as  dear  chil- 
dren ;"  but,  still,  God  is  our  Father  before  that, 
and  it  is  with  reference  to  this  relationship  that  he 
will  be  honored  by  our  conduct  towards  him,  and 
by  his  dealings  with  us.  We  rejoice,  then,  in  the 
liberty  of  our  faith  to  recognize  in  God  the  great 
Father  and  Protector  of  the  whole  human  family* 
Amen  and  Amen. 

This  truth  we  deem  established.  Now,  there  is 
a  question  put  concerning  this  truth,  which  we  will 
make  use  of  with  reference  to  our  present  subject. 
Saith  the  Lord,  by  the  prophet  Malachi,  "  If,  then, 
I  be  a  Father,  where  is  mine  honor  ?  *'  And  in- 
deed this  question  may  be  brought  triumphantly 
against  any  doctrine  which  does  not  limit  the  chas- 
tisements of  God,  and  cause  them  to  result  in  good. 
David  has  well  described  the  principle  of  parental 
government :  "  If  his  children  forsake  my  law, 
and  walk  not  in  my  judgments ;  if  they  break  my 
statutes,  and  keep  not  my  commandments  ;  then 
will  I  visit  their  transgressions  with  a  rod,  and 
their  iniquity  with  stripes.  Nevertheless,  my  loving- 
kindness  will  I  NOT  UTTERLY  take  from  him,  nor 
suffer  my  faithfulness  to  fail"  (Psalm  Ixxxix. 


116         UNJVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

30 — 33.)  Consider  this  declaration  of  the  principle 
of  divine  .punishment,  this  principle  of  every  good 
earthly  father,  of  punishing  for  profit  and  correc- 
tion, to  bring  good  ultimately  out  of  it,  with  what 
is  ascribed  to  God,  the  Father  of  the  human  fami- 
ly. According  to  this  theory,  the  sentiment  of 
David  is  utterly  reversed.  According  to  popular 
theology,  God  says,  "  If  my  children  transgress 
my  laws,  and  walk  not  in  my  judgments ;  if  they 
break  my  statutes,  and  keep  not  my  command- 
ments ;  then  will  I  not  only  visit  their  transgres- 
sions with  a  rod,  and  their  iniquity  with  stripes,  but 
my  loving-kindness  will  I  utterly  take  from  them, 
and  inflict  upon  them  unprofitable  and  unimagina- 
ble torment,  so  long  as  I  exist ! "  This  is  a  candid 
exposition  of  our  prevailing  theology.  Might  not 
the  Creator  well  exclaim,  "  If,  then,  I  be  a  Father, 
where  is  mine  honor  ?  "  And  where  is  it  ?  Not 
in  Calvinism ;  for  that  is  most  tyrannical  and  ex- 
clusive. Not  in  Arminianism ;  for  that  is  most 
cruel  and  unjust.  Where,  then,  shall  we  find  it> 
but  in  that  UNIVERSAL  system  of  grace  and  good- 
will which  declares  the  parental  relationship  to  all 
God's  moral  offspring,  —  that  the  most  severe 
chastisements  of  Jehovah  are  but  the  sterner  ex- 
pressions of  his  love,  and  that,  upon  this  benevo- 
lent principle,  every  rebel  in  the  universe  will  be 
dealt  with  for  all  his  transgressions  of  the  law  ? 
We  do  affirm  that  there  is  a  beauty  and  a  justness 
in  this  view  of  the  divine  government,  which  no 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 


11? 


other  system  has,  and  that  this  alone,  the  excellent 
and  efficient  paternity  of  the  Almighty,  recom- 
mends the  system  in  question  to  the  hearts  and 
consciences  of  all  men. 

VI.  The  doctrine  of  universal  salvation  is  con- 
genial with  all  holy  desires.  There  may  be  more 
in  this  than  most  people  are  apt  to  imagine.  Did 
you  ever  reflect  upon  the  fact,  that  the  doctrine  we 
approve  approves  itself  to  all  ?  The  hope  of  a 
final  reign  of  universal  purity  and  blessedness1 
seems  to  be  a  plant  of  almost  natural  growth  in 
the  breast  of  every  human  being.  We  say,  in 
every  human  feeing,  became,  whenever  and  where- 
ever  a  human  mind  is  found  free  from  the  shackles' 
of  barbarism,  ignorance,  infidelity;  and  atheism, -:— 
which  can  dare  to  send  forth  an  inquiry?  and  lift 
the  curtain  that  veils  the  mysteries  of  another 
world,  —  there  will  arise  the  conjecture,  whether^ 
some  benignant  Providence  hath  not  secured  the 
final  blessedness  of  the  congregated  universe; 
And  more  than  this :  even  where  the  influence  of 
early  instilled  and  carefully  cultivated  principles 
has  checked  the  manifestation  of  this  truth  in  the 
creeds  and  confessions  of  mankind,  -^whete  the 
omnipotence  of  education  has  an  irresistible  force 
in  fashioning  the  mind,  and  keeping  it  from  enter- 
taining such  a  thought,  —  even  here,  and  among  a: 
people  who  not  only  reject,  but  bitterly  oppose  it,  is 
the  "  word  nigh  unto  them,  even  in  their  hearts 
and  in  their  mouths ;  and  that  is  the  word  of  faitfe 


118         UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

which  we  preach."  It  is  exhibited  in  the  wishes, 
the  desires,  the  hopes  of  all  Christians,  of  whatever 
faith,  and  is  uttered  in  the  prayers  of  every  philan- 
thropist, poured  forth  warm  and  fervently,  against 
creeds,  against  faith,  for  the  salvation  of  universal 
humanity.  Surely,  the  God  of  all  truth  would 
never  have  implanted  aspirations  so  universal  in 
the  minds  of  men,  did  they  not  leap  from  the  heart 
to  the  recognition  of  the  same  truth  which  gave 
them  birth.  And,  whatever  may  be  made,  said, 
or  inferred,  from  this  fact,  we  deem  it  an  important 
testimony  to  the  truth  as  it  stands  out  from  the 
pages  of  God's  revelation.  It  is  not  the  law  writ- 
ten in  the  heart,  but  it  is  the  testimony,  and  re- 
sponded to  by  every  evidence  in  nature,  and  by 
every  utterance  of  the  God  of  nature.  Our  hearts 
suggest,  nature  promises,  and  the  word  of  God 
declares,  that  "  Of  him,  and  through  him,  and  to 
him,  are  all  things ;  to  whom  be  glory  forever." 

But  we  have  mentioned  the  prayers  of  individu- 
als. And  it  is  a  singular  and  touching  fact,  that 
the  earnest  invocations  which  ascend  to  the  throne 
of  thrones,  imploring  the  Deity  to  accomplish  the 
salvation  of  the  world,  should  rise  from  faithless 
hearts,  so  warm,  so  fervently.  Whatever  may  be 
meant  by  that  affirmation  of  the  apostle  on  another 
subject — "Whatsoever  is  not  of  faith  is  sin" — 
however  much  may  be  embodied  here,  we  can  but 
view  these  faithless  prayers  as  the  offerings  of 
hearts  most  strangely  at  variance  with  the  warm 
petition.  We  do  not  mean  to  say  that,  with  an 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST   PARTIALISM.          119 

enlightened  view  of  the  system  of  our  faith,  they 
would  not  wish  it  true ;  but  we  have  reference  to 
that  undoubting  disbelief  of  the  granting  of  what  is 
asked  for,  insomuch  that,  if  you  tell  the  petitioner 
it  will  be  granted,  he  will  enter  into  a  spirited 
argument  against  it !  Can  these  be  the  prayers 
of  faith  ?  We  would  not  question  the  sincerity  or 
the  piety  of  our  Christian  brethren ;  but  we  think 
they  "  greatly  err."  Does  it  not  look  like  a  spe- 
cies of  mockery,  to  put  forth  to  the  Deity  a  fervent 
prayer,  which  we  as  heartily  believe  will  never  be 
answered  —  that  it  cannot  consistently  be  answered 
— and  that  a  faith  which  is  congenial  with  the 
answer  is  radically  and  scripturally  wrong  ?  Upon 
this  very  subject,  the  apostle  hath  instructed  us, 
that  we  offer  prayers  for  the  salvation  of  "all 
men,  without  doubting."  (1  Tim.  ii.  1 — 8.)  Upon 
which  Dr.  Clarke  says — "reasonings"  are  referred 
to  — "  Such  as  are  often  felt  by  distressed  peni- 
tents and  timid  believers ;  faith,  hope,  and  unbelief 
appearing  to  hold  a  disputation  and  controversy  in 
their  own  bosoms ;  in  the  issue  of  which  unbelief 
ordinarily  triumphs."  *  The  doctor  could  not,  if 
he  had  tried,  represented  more  aptly  the  case  of 
such  Christians,  or  the  apparent  impiety  of  such 
prayers.  It  is  granted  by  all  that  we  should  pray 
in  submission  to  the  will  of  God,  nothing  doubting 
but  his  purpose  will  be  accomplished,  and  the 
objects  of  such  prayers  be  granted.  Now  the 

*  Clarke  on  this  passage. 


120    UNIVERSALISM  AGAINST  PARTIAL  ISM. 

apostle  hath  signified  to  us.  ithe  will  of  God,  which, 
veven  though  it  be  admitted  to  be  the  will  of  desire 
merely,  is  the  salvation  of  all  men.  And  he  has 
exhorted  us;  to  pray  for  it  "  without  doubting." 
But,  if  there  exist  "  reasonings,  faith,  hope,  and 
unbelief,"  entering  into  a  sort  of  "  controversy  " 
and  ^  .disputation  "  in  the  bosom  of  the  petitioner, 
where  even  "  unbelief  ordinarily  triumphs,"  what 
character  shall  we  ascribe  to  such  prayers,  or  what 
to  the  faith  in  such  direct  hostility  against  them  ? 
They  are  certainly  not  the  prayers  of  "  faith, 
nothing  wavering,"  even  if,  not  being  "  of  faith," 
they  are  not  "  sin."  And,  when  we  look  at  the 
subject  in  the  strongest  light,  ~r-  when  we  look  out 
upon  assembled  multitudes  who  congregate  to  min- 
gle the  incense  of  their  prayers  for  the  salvation  of 
Adam's  wide-spread  race,  and  those,  too,  who,  if 
you  tell  them  afterwards  that  there  is  every  reason 
in  the  world  to  believe  their  prayers  will  be  an- 
swered, they  will  then  turn  about  and  resent  it,  or 
get  into  a  passion  with  you,- — we  cannot  think  that 
such  prayers  are  acceptable  offerings  to  the  Most 
pigh ;  or,  if  they  are,  the  faith  that  contradicts, 
fhem  must  be  singularly  false. 

We,  thank  God  !  can  perform  a  .consistent  duty, 
in  praying  for  the  human  race ;  nothing  doubting 
that  God  will  bestow  a  favor  so  consistent  with  his 
will,  and  so  in  accordance  with  all  holy  desires. 
Our  proposition,  then,  has  an  importance  with  it 
which  gives  it  the  character  of  strong  evidence  for 
tjue  truth  of  a  theory  which  can  alone  support  it. 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM.          121 

The  doctrine  we  advocate  is  congenial  with  all 
holy  desires.  We  can  preach  Universalism,  and 
pray  Universalism,  and  say  amen  in  faith ;  where 
as,  the  theory  of  Partialism  must  strangely  contra- 
dict the  prayers  of  faithless  hearts,  and  exist  in 
jarring  dissonance  with  the  holiest  aspirations  of 
the  soul. 

We  rest,  then,  thus  far,  in  the  following  conclu- 
sions :  that  the  doctrine  of  universal  and  eternal 
holiness  and  happiness  is  the  only  one  which  does 
not  insult  our  reason  on  the  very  first  consideration 
of  it ;  that  it  excludes  all  absolute  evil,  and  main- 
tains that  the  universe  shall  ultimately  embrace 
nothing  but  good ;  that  it  harmonizes  all  the  attri- 
butes of  God  ;  that  it  renders  all  the  commands  of 
God  consistent ;  that  it  recognizes  the  parental 
relationship  of  God  to  all  his  moral  offspring ;  and 
that  it  is  congenial  with  all  holy  desires.  These 
are  some  of  the  "strong  reasons"  which  we 
"  bring  forth "  in  support  of  our  "  cause,"  and 
which  cannot  be  brought  forth  by  any  other  system 
of  divinity.  For  these  reasons,  we  prize  and  honor 
it,  and  count  it  worthy  of  our  reverence  and  faith. 
It  will  stand  upon  a  rational  basis,  and  does  not 
ask  us  to  renounce  our  reason,  or  to  shrink  from 
an  investigation  of  its  claims.  It  had,  we  trust,  its 
origin  in  Eternal  Reason  itself,  and  its  consumma- 
tion unto  all  will  be  "  the  feast  of  reason,  and  the 
flow  of  soul." 

11* 


- 


LECTURE   IV. 

FOR   THE   DOCTRINE   OF   UNIVERSAL   SAL- 
VATION, CONTINUED. 

What  saith  the  Scripture?    Romans  iv.  3. 

IN  considering  the  merits  of  the  doctrine  of  uni- 
versal salvation,  it  has  frequently  been  declared 
that,  notwithstanding  the  appearance  of  reason  in 
many  of  the  arguments  put  forth  in  defence  of  it? 
it  is,  nevertheless,  felt  to  be  repugnant  to  the  line 
of  Scripture  testimony  in  reference  to  this  momen- 
tous question.  Hence,  the  reasons  which  are 
urged  in  its  behalf  are  pronounced  unworthy  of 
trust,  and  the  controversy  is  then  put  upon  scrip- 
tural ground,  where,  it  is  said,  Universalism  meets 
no  response  but  that  of  a  continued  line  of  conr 
demnation.  In  accounting,  however,  for  a  large 
share  of  this  felt  repugnancy,  we  shall  ascribe  it  at 
once  to  the  force  of  tradition,  and  the  hold  of  edu- 
cation on  the  mind.  Men  have  been  instructed 
from  their  infancy,  and  their  instructers  from  their 
infancy,  back  through  many  generations ;  and  a 
religious  opinion,  thus  nourished  and  supported, 
has  struck  its  roots  to  the  very  depths  of  the  human 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.          123 

heart,  and  become,  in  fact,  a  part  of  that  heart 
itself.  Is  it  any  wonder  that  such  sentiments  re- 
tain their  hold  as  they  do  ?  The  wonder  an.d  the 
praise  should  be?  that  the  force  of  truth  is*  so  om- 
nipotent to  dislodge  these  opinions  from  the  soul. 

The  final  undoing  and  endless  punishment  of 
the  wicked  has  so  long  been  received  implicitly  as 
the  truth  of  God's  declaration,  that  many  who 
peruse  the  matter  of  their  Bibles  take  this  point 
as  a  key  of  interpretation,  to  unlock  the  meaning 
of  those  Scriptures,  which,  without  this  aid,  would 
remain  to  them  in  a  shadow  of  obscurity.  And 
these  passages,  many  of  them?  are  of  the  plainest 
and  most  simple  character.  So  great  is  the  hold 
of  fireside  opinions.  No  one,  I  presume,  will  dis- 
pute the  fact,  that  almost  every  threatening  of  a 
general  character,  on  the  pages  of  the  Scriptures, 
is  carried,  by  many,  far  from  its  context  and  con- 
nection, away  into  a  future  world,  for  application 
and  improvement.  Even  those  of  a  most  unques- 
tionable temporal  and  earthly  nature,  where  th.e 
context  and  all  the  circumstances  show  that  they 
must  be  confined  to  a  state  of  flesh  and  blood,  are, 
pn  the  wing  of  swift  imagination,  transported  to  . 
the  world  of  spirits.  Nothing  could  exceed  the 
wildness  of  such  a  course.  While  the  whole  Old 
Testament  is,  by  some  of  the  most  eminent  de- 
fenders of  the  eternity  of  punishment,  given  up  as 
affording  no  proof  at  all  of  it,  how  many  less-inr 
formed  Christians  are  there  who  find  no  difficulty 


124         UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTI AXISM. 

in  selecting  from  these  Scriptures  hundreds  of  texts 
in  support  of  this  most  questionable  sentiment ! 

But  enough :  there  are,  evidently,  two  sides  to 
the  subject  of  the  present  controversy.  Be  it  ours 
to  present  the  scriptural  ground-work  of  a  doctrine 
so  glorious  and  infinitely  desirable  as  that  of  the 
universal  and  complete  salvation  of  the  human 
species.  And  if  we  succeed  in  establishing  this 
side  of  the  question,  of  course,  the  opposite  doc- 
trine falls,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  from  its 
supposed  foundation  in  the  Bible.  Nevertheless, 
we  shall,  in  the  sequel,  offer  some  general  remarks 
upon  the  numerous  passages  brought  forth  in  de- 
fence of  the  opposing  theory. 

I.  We  begin  with  a  notice  of  the  first  gospel 
promise  mentioned  in  the  Bible.  It  relates  to  the 
Saviour's  conquest  over  sin :  "  I  will  put  enmity 
between  thee  and  the  woman,  and  between  thy 
seed  and  her  seed  :  it  shall  bruise  thy  head,  and 
thou  shalt  bruise  his  heel."  (Gen.  iii.  15.)  This 
is  the  language  of  the  Lord  to  the  serpent.  The 
sense  of  the  passage  is  this :  enmity  shall  exist 
between  the  serpent,  or  sin,  and  the  seed  of  the 
woman,  which  is  Christ.  Christ  shall  bruise  the 
serpent's  head.  Here  is  an  allusion  to  the  ancient 
custom  of  killing  serpents.  The  blow  was  given 
upon  the  head.  To  bruise  a  serpent's  head  is  to 
destroy  it.  Christ,  therefore,  shall  destroy  sin. 
This  agrees  with  another  passage,  where  we  find 
the  same  fact  recorded  :  "  Forasmuch,  then,  as  the 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM.          125 

children  are  partakers  of  flesh  and  blood,  he  also 
himself  took  part  of  the  same  ;  that  through  death 
he  might  destroy  him  that  had  the  power  of  death, 
that  is,  the  devil."  (Heh.  ii.  14.)  Again,  the 
works  of  the  devil  are  to  be  destroyed.  "  For  this 
purpose  the  Son  of  God  was  manifested,  that  he 
might  destroy  the  works  of  the  devil."  (1  John 
iii.  8.)  This  testimony  is  conclusive.  The  ser- 
pent's head  shall  be  bruised,  the  works  of  the  devil 
destroyed,  and  the  devil  himself  annihilated.  This 
is  the  testimony  of  Moses,  John,  and  Paul.  The 
conquest  over  sin  shall  be  universal  and  complete. 
II.  We  pass  to  a  brief  notice  of  the  promises  to 
the  ancient  patriarchs.  These  are,  indeed,  familiar ; 
but  our  object  is  to  convince,  rather  than  confirm. 
The  sum  of  the  promises  is  this :  a  declaration  of 
the  Lord  to  Abraham,  renewed  unto  Isaac,  and 
.confirmed  unto  Jacob,  that  in  their  seed  "  all  the 
nations  and  families  of  the  earth  should  be 
blessed."  (Gen.  xii.  3 ;  xxvi.  4 ;  xxviii.  14.) 
These  promises  are  also  spoken  of  by  Peter  on 
this  wise  :  "  And  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  kindreds 
of  the  earth  be  blessed."  (Acts  iii.  25.)  That 
this  language  conveys  the  idea  of  universality  can- 
not be  successfully  disputed,  insomuch  as  no  indi- 
vidual can  be  found  who  belongs  not  to  some 
nation,  family,  or  kindred.  And,  indeed,  partial- 
ists  themselves  are  constrained  to  admit  the  univer- 
sality of  this  language.  On  Genesis  xxviii.  14, 
Clarke  remarks,  "  Not  only  all  thy  race,  but  all 


126         UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

the  other  families  or  tribes  of  mankind,  which 
have  not  proceeded  from  the  Abrahamic  family, 
shall  be  blessed ;  for  Jesus  Christ  by  the  grace  of 
God  tasted  death  FOR  EVERY  MAN."  And  on  Gen- 
esis xii.  3,  he  remarks,  "  In  the  Messiah  shall  all  the 
families  of  the  earth  be  blessed  ;  for  he  shall  taste 
death  for  every  man ;  his  gospel  shall  be  preached 
throughout  the  world ;  and  innumerable  blessings  be 
derived  on  ALL  MANKIND,  through  his  death  and 
intercession."  What  kind  of  blessings,  doctor  ? 

These  promises,  then,  are  universal.  But  there 
are  now  two  considerations  which  are  urged 
against  the  use  which  we  would  make  of  them  ; 
one  is,  that  they  are  not  gospel  promises,  but  only 
promises  of  temporal  blessings  ;  another  is,  that  al- 
though they  may  be  gospel  promises,  yet  they  are 
conditional,  and  may  not  be  realized  in  a  universal 
fulfilment. 

With  regard  to  the  first  of  these  objections,  it  is 
sufficient  to  remark,  that  the  apostle  calls  them 
gospel  promises.  Alluding  to  them,  he  says,  "  And 
the  Scripture,  foreseeing  that  God  would  justify 
the  heathen  through  faith,  preached  before  the 
gospel  unto  Abraham,  saying,  In  thee  shall  all 
nations  be  blessed."  (Gal.  iii.  8.)  This  is  suffi- 
cient. Paul  calls  them  gospel  promises,  and  also 
promises  of  justification  through  faith.  There  is, 
then,  nothing  temporal  in  them. 

But  it  is  again  affirmed  that,  admitting  them  to 
be  gospel  promises,  nevertheless,  they  are  condi- 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.         127 

tional,  depending  on  our  faith,  and  may  not  have  a 
fulfilment  that  is  universal. 

Our  answer  is,  first,  there  is  nothing  in  the 
promises  themselves  that  is  conditional.  The  lan- 
guage is  positive  and  absolute.  The  Lord  says, 
"  I  WILL,  and  thou  SHALT." 

In  the  next  place,  we  observe,  these  promises 
are  either  unconditional,  or  else  God's  veracity  is 
impeached.  To  say  that  faith  is  any  part  of  the 
condition  is  the  veriest  absurdity.  For  the  promise 
is  the  very  thing  to  be  believed.  As  such,  it  must 
be  absolutely  true  before  we  believe  it,  else  we 
are  required  to  believe  a  falsehood,  or  something 
which  is  not  true  till  we  believe  it ! 

God  himself  has  declared  to  us  the  impiety  of 
imputing  to  him  such  conduct.  "  He  that  believeth 
on  the  Son  of  God  hath  the  witness  in  himself:  he 
that  believeth  not  God  hath  made  him  a  liar ;  be- 
cause he  believeth  not  the  record  that  God  gave  of 
his  Son.  And  this  is  the  record,  that  God  hath 
given  to  us  eternal  life ;  and  this  life  is  in  his  Son." 
(1  John  v.  10,  11.)  In  this  passage,  believers 
and  unbelievers  are  called  upon  to  believe  the 
record  that  God  gave  of  his  Son.  What  is  the 
record  ?  "  This  is  the  record,  that  God  hath  given 
to  us  eternal  life."  And  "  he  that  believeth  not  " 
this  record,  "  hath  made  God  a  liar."  But  how  so, 
if  the  unbeliever  hath  not  this  life  made  sure  for 
him  before  he  believes  ?  The  very  fact  that  unbe- 
lievers are  required  to  believe  that  they  have  eter- 


128         UNIVERSAL1SM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM, 

nal  life  proves  that  they  have  it  infallibly  in  store 
for  them,  whether  they  believe  it  or  not ;  because, 
if  they  thus  have  it,  they  make  God  a  liar  by  dis- 
believing it ;  but,  if  they  do  not  have  it,  I  do  not  see 
how  they  could  make  him  a  liar  if  they  did  dis- 
believe it,  for  they  would  disbelieve  no  truth. 

It  is  precisely  so  with  the  promises.  We  are 
called  upon  to  believe  them.  They  must,  there- 
fore, be  true  before  we  believe,  and  faith  cannot  be 
the  condition.  I  am  willing  to  grant  that,  without 
faith,  we  cannot  enjoy  the  promises ;  but  this  does 
not  prove  that  they  are  false,  or  not  true  till  we 
believe  them.  They  ARE  true,  and  our  disbelief 
cannot  affect  their  verity.  And  they  which  believe 
"  are  blessed  with  faithful  Abraham."  But "  What 
if  some  did  not  believe  ?  Shall  their  unbelief 
make  the  faith  [or  faithfulness]  of  God  without  ef- 
fect ?  God  forbid :  yea,  let  God  be  true,  but 
every  man  a  liar."  (Rom.  iii.  3,  4.) 

But,  again,  the  apostle  hath  distinctly  declared^ 
in  so  many  words,  that  the  divine  promises  are  not 
conditional.  "  But  as  God  is  true,  our  word  to- 
ward you  was  not  yea  and  nay.  For  the  Son  of 
God,  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  preached  among  you 
by  us,  even  by  me,  and  Sylvanus,  and  Timotheusy 
was  not  yea  and  nay,  but  in  him  was  yea.  For 
all  the  promises  of  God  in  him  are  yea,  and  in 
him,  amen,  unto  the  glory  of  God  by  us."  (2  Cor. 
i.  18 — 20.)  That  is,  they  are  absolute,  infallibly 
certain.  But  the  doctrine  we  are  examining  is  in 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.          129 

evident  hostility  to  this  emphatic  testimony.  It 
affirms  that  the  divine  promises,  if  believed,  will 
be  yea;  and  if  disbelieved,  will  be  nay.  And, 
therefore,  instead  of  the  apostle's  doctrine,  that 
they  are  all  yea  and  amen,  it  contends  that  they 
are  both  yea  and  nay,  according  to  the  belief  or 
unbelief  of  men.  And,  in  fact,  the  system  goes 
still  further.  It  approaches  the  deistical  ground, 
that  God's  promises  are  neither  one  thing  nor  the 
other,  neither  yea  nor  nay,  until  they  are  believed 
or  disbelieved  by  man  !  ! 

So  much,  then,  for  the  affirmed  conditionality  of 
the  promises.  Indeed,  we  are  willing  to  acknowl- 
edge that  man  is*  not  a  passive  instrument  in  the' 
hands  of  God  ;  that  God's  promises  will  not  be  ful- 
filled upon  his  head,  with  man  in  a  posture  of  un- 
willingness or  ignorance ;  that  a  certain  condition 
of  the  mind  is  requisite  for  the  experiencing  of 
God's  salvation  ;  —  but  if  this  be  called  a  conditional 
salvation,  it  is  a  condition  which  is  sure  of  a  true 
performance  ;  for  God,  after  all,  is  the  ultimate  and 
directing  cause,  and  in  this  sense  it  may  be  said 
that  "  we  are  his  workmanship,  created  in  Christ 
Jesus  unto  good  works,  which  God  haih  before  or- 
dained that  we  should  walk  in  them." 

III.  In  defence  of  universal  salvation  may  now 
be  presented  other  passages  of  various  and  special 
import.  We  do  not,  indeed,  agree  in  the  applica- 
tion of  many  passages  which  have  been  made  use 
of  in  proof  of  the  universality  of  the  salvation  of 
12 


130         UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

the  gospel ;  for  we  are  of  opinion  that  there  are 
sufficient  Scriptures,  and  those  sufficiently  explicit 
and  direct,  to  justify,  and  even  to  encourage,  a 
departure  from  many  doubtful  texts  which  have 
usually  been  resorted  to  in  this  great  controversy. 
One  text  of  a  direct  and  unequivocal  bearing  is 
better  than  a  hundred  which,  from  some  little  cir- 
cumstance in  its  phraseology  or  context,  an  oppo- 
nent may  make  an  uningenuous  use  of,  to  slur  and 
weaken  the  whole  character  of  evidence  employed 
upon  the  subject. 

In  the  exposition  of  this  subject,  we  may  not  fol- 
low the  order  of  the  Scriptures  with  so  much  ad- 
vantage as  the  order  of  theology.  In  other  words, 
we  may  not,  with  so  much  success,  follow  the 
arrangement  of  the  books  and  chapters  of  the 
Bible,  as  the  arrangement  of  divine  Providence  in 
accomplishing  the  salvation  of  the  world.  We 
may  not  be  enabled  to  do  this,  so  far  as  Scripture 
testimony  is  concerned,  but  in  a  very  brief  manner ; 
but  this,  at  any  rate,  should  be  done  first,  as  far  as 
may  be,  before  we  adduce  promiscuous  Scriptures 
in  attestation  of  the  truth. 

God,  then,  in  the  first  place,  willed  the  salvation 
of  the  world.  "  God  will  have  all  men  to  be 
saved,  and  to  come  unto  the  knowledge  of  the 
truth."  (1  Tim.  ii.  4.)  Is  this  a  will  of  desire  or  of 
purpose  ?  I  answer,  it  makes  no  difference  which 
it  may  be,  as  it  regards  the  accomplishment  there- 
of. We  have  been  sickened  long  enough  with  the 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM.          181 

crude  idea  that,  with  reference  to  the  ends  of  the 
divine  government,  God's  will  of  desire  and  will  of 
purpose  may  be  different,  and  even  hostile  to  each 
other.  It  does  not  comport  with  sound  sense  or 
sound  theology,  to  say  that  what  God  desires,  as  an 
end  in  the  divine  economy,  he  does  not  purpose  to 
effect.  Can  we  say,  then,  that  he  purposes  what 
he  does  not  desire  ?  With  as  much  propriety  as 
we  can  the  former.  We  may  rest  assured,  my 
brethren,  that  what  God  desires,  as  the  result  of  his 
government,  he  will  verily  see  that  it  is  accom- 
plished. 

But  we  contend  that  it  is  not  a  will  of  desire 
merely,  but  a  will  of  purpose,  and  is  so  expressed 
by  the  apostle :  "  God  WILL  HAVE  all  men  to  be 
saved."  Besides,  the  testimony  of  the  same  apos- 
tle is,  "  Having  made  known  unto  us  the  mystery 
of  his  will,  according  to  his  good  pleasure,  which 
he  hath  PURPOSED  in  himself,  that  in  the  dispensa- 
tion of  the  fulness  of  times,  he  might  gather  to- 
gether in  one  all  things  in  Christ,  both  which  are  in 
heaven  and  which  are  on  earth,  even  in  him." 
(Eph.  i.  9,  10.)  It  is,  then,  the  desire  and  the 
purpose  of  Jehovah  to  gather  together  in  one  all 
things  in  Christ.  It  is  also  further  stated,  "In 
whom  also  we  have  obtained  an  inheritance,  BEING 
PREDESTINATED  according  to  the  purpose  of  him 
who  worketh  all  things  after  the  counsel  of  his  own 
will."  (Eph.  i.  11.)  Nothing  could  be  stronger 


132         UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

evidence  of  the  will  and  purpose  of  God  to  effect 
the  salvation  of  the  world. 

Now,  in  the  next  place,  what  God  willed  and 
purposed,  he  sent  his  Son  to  accomplish.  The  be- 
loved apostle  says,  "  We  have  seen  and  do  testify, 
that  the  Father  sent  the  Son  to  be  the  Saviour  of 
the  world."  (I  John  iv.  14.) 

In  the  next  place,  what  God  willed  and  purposed, 
and  sent  his  Son  to  accomplish,  Jesus,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  mission  he  received,  faithfully  un- 
dertook. He  ''gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all," 
"  tasted  death  for  every  man,"  and  is  **  the  propi- 
tiation for  our  sins,  and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also 
for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world."  (1  John  ii.  2.) 

In  the  next  place,  what  God  willed  and  purposed, 
and  sent  his  Son  to  accomplish,  and  Jesus  in  ac- 
cordance therewith  undertook,  shall  be  fully  con- 
summated. The  great  apostle  speaks  of  the  con- 
summation in  terms  of  perspicuity  and  force : 
"  Then  cometh  the  END,  when  he  shall  have  de- 
livered up  the  kingdom  to  God,  even  the  Father ; 
when  he  shall  have  put  down  all  rule,  and  all 
authority  and  power.  For  he  must  reign  till  he 
hath  put  all  enemies  under  his  feet.  The  last 
enemy  that  shall  be  destroyed  is  death.  *  *  * 
And  when  all  things  shall  be  subdued  unto  him, 
then  shall  the  Son  also  himself  be  subject  unto  him 
that  put  all  things  under  him,  that  God  may  le  all 
in  all."  (1  Cor.  xv.  24—28.)  Observe,  here, 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM.          133 

that  all  enemies  are  not  to  be  subdued  by  being 
imprisoned  for  eternity,  or  by  placing  tbe  rebellious 
spirits  where  no  further  harm  can  result  to  the 
interests  of  Christ's  kingdom.  No,  this  is  not  the 
subjection  of  Christ.  A  slave  or  rebel  may  be 
thus  subdued ;  chains  may  hang  upon  his  body, 
while  still  the  mind  may  burn  with  vengeance,  and 
he  be  only  outwardly  subdued.  This  is  not  the 
subjection  of  Christ.  And  if  you  will  look  at  the 
passage  last  quoted,  you  will  find  that  the  text 
warrants  the  conclusion  that  all  enemies  are  to  be 
subdued  by  having  their  enmity  destroyed,  and 
becoming  willing  subjects  of  the  King  of  saints. 
Nay,  the  passage  presents  us  with  the  fact,  that 
these  enemies  are  to  become  subject  unto  Christ  in 
the  same  way  that  he  is  subject  unto  God.  Ob- 
serve, "  He  must  reign  till  he  hath  put  all  enemies 
under  his  feet ;  and  when  all  things  shall  be  sub- 
dued unto  him,  tfon  shall  the  SON  ALSO  HIMSELF  le 
subject  unto  him  that  put  all  things  under  him,  that 
God  may  be  ALL  IN  ALL."  God  can  never  be  all 
in  all,  in  a  spiritual  sense,  until  all  are  subjected 
unto  Christ  AS  he  is  to  God,  which,  in  fact,  the 
Spirit  testifies. 

Another  testimony  with  regard  to  the  consum- 
mation of  God's  will  arid  purpose,  for  which  Christ 
was  sent,  and  for  which  he  labored,  may  be  found 
in  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  At  the  conclusion 
of  the  eleventh  chapter,  after  tracing  the  succes- 
sive stages  of  God's  providence  in  the  system  of 
12* 


134         UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

election,  he  makes  it  issue  in  the  salvation  of  all  the 
Jews,  and  all  the  Gentile  world,  and  concludes  the 
universal  theme  with  the  following  universal  lan- 
guage :  "  For  God  hath  concluded  them  all  in  un* 
belief,  [both  Jews  and  Gentiles,]  that  he  might 
have  mercy  upon  all.  O  the  depth  of  the  riches 
both  of  the  wisdom  and  knowledge  of  God  !  how 
unsearchable  are  his  judgments,  and  his  ways 
past  rinding  out !  For  who  hath  known  the  mind 
of  the  Lord  ?  or  who  hath  been  his  counsellor  ? 
Or  who  hath  first  given  to  him,  and  it  shall  be 
recompensed  to  him  again  ?  For  of  him,  and 
through  him,  and  TO  HIM  ARE  ALL  THINGS  ;  to. 
wlwm  be  glory  forever.  Amen." 

From  the  whole,  there  could  not  be  a  more  con? 
nected  and  conclusive  argument  for  the  salvation 
of  the  world  presented  to  the  human  mind.  It  is 
infallibly  established,  that  God,  in  the  plenitude  of 
his  goodness,  first  willed  the  salvation  of  the  world  ; 
that  this  will  is  a  will  of  determinate  purpose  ;  that 
he  then  sent  his  Son  to  execute  this  purpose  ;  that 
Jesus  accordingly  undertook  the  work ;  and  that, 
finally,  the  will,  and  purpose,  and  work,  shall  be 
consummated,  in  the  subjugation  of  all  mankind  to 
the  Messiah's  spiritual  reign,  as  he  is  to  be  sub- 
jected to  the  Father,  who  shall  then  be  all  in  all, 
to  whom  be  glory  forever. 

IV.  We  may  now  leave  the  order  of  theology, 
and  introduce  other  promiscuous  Scriptures,  con- 
firmatory of  the  same  great  truth.  And,  in  the  first 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST 

place,  the  Saviour  himself  hath  d\ 
sality  of  the  accomplishment  of 
"  And  I,"  says  he, "  if  I  be  lifted  up  : 
will  draw  all  men  unto  me."  (John  xii. ! 
insomuch  as  the  only  condition  was  fulfilled  on 
which  the  accomplishment  of  this  truth  depended,  — 
as  the  Saviour  was  lifted,  like  the  serpent  in  the 
wilderness,  so  must  he  draw,  influence,  or  attract 
all  men  unto  him.  And  this  agrees  with  another 
testimony  which  is  written,  "  The  Father  loveth 
the  Son,  and  hath  given  all  things  into  his  hand. 
*  #  *  All  that  the  Father  giveth  me  shall  come  to 
me ;  and  him  that  cometh  to  me,  I  will  in  no  wise 
cast  out."  (John  iii.  35;  vi.  37.) 

The  next  passage  we  shall  introduce  is  in  the 
fifth  of  Romans.  "  Therefore,  as  by  the  offence  of 
one,  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemna- 
tion ;  even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one,  the  free 
gift  came  upon  all  men  unto  justification  of  life." 
It  is  evidently  the  apostle's  idea  here,  that  the 
free  gift  unto  justification  is  as  extensive  as  was 
the  judgment  to  condemnation.  And  how  exten- 
sive are  they  ?  Both  are  universal.  As  all  men 
are  condemned  by  the  offence  of  one,  "  EVEN  so  " 
are  the  same  all  men  justified  by  the  other.  If  it  is 
said  that  the  free  gift  was  only  offered  by  these 
means,  but  that  many  will  not  accept  the  offer,  we 
reply,  that  such  is  not  the  doubtful  character  of  the 
apostle's  language.  Besides,  we  have  before 
proved  that  all  must  become  willing  subjects  to 


136         UNI  VERBALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

Christ,  even  as  he  is  to  be  subjected  to  the  Father, 
But  the  apostle's  language  is  emphatic :  "  THE 

FREE  GIFT    CAME  UPON  ALL    MEN,"  not,  WCtS    offered 

to.  Look  also  at  the  next  verse  :  "  For  as  by  one 
man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners ;  so 
by  the  obedience  of  one  SHALL  many  be  made 
righteous."  How  extensive  is  the  signification  of 
the  term  many  here  ?  How  many  were  made  sin- 
ners ?  All.  "  So  by  the  obedience  of  one,"  then, 
"  SHALL  ALL,"  or  the  same  number,  "  be  made 
righteous."  And  this  agrees  with  the  former  verse. 
To  be  made  righteous  is  the  same  as  to  obtain 
justification  unto  life.  And  the  free  gift  came 
upon  all  men  for  this  justification.  And  the  apostle 
continues,  —  "  Moreover,  the  law  entered,  that  the 
offence  might  abound  ;  but  where  sin  abounded, 
grace  did  much  more  abound."  This  is  a  very 
singular  expression,  if,  in  millions  of  instances,  sin 
is  to  abound  over  grace,  and  the  triumph  of  sin  be 
perpetual  where  grace  can  never  operate.  The 
doctrine  of  unpardonable  sin,  and  the  idea  of  "  sin- 
ning away  the  day  of  grace,"  are  both  repulsed  by 
this  gracious  testimony  ;  for  grace  must  abound 
over  sin,  or  this  testimony  is  effectually  repudiated. 
But  the  next  verse  confirms  and  establishes  the 
whole.  "  That  as  sin  hath  reigned  unto  death," 
[that  is,  universally,']  EVEN  so  might  grace  reign, 
[universally,]  through  righteousness  unto  eternal 
life,  by  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord."  There  is  nothing 
in  this  last  verse  which  an  objector  can  cavil  on, 


TJNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM.          137 

except  it  be  the  term  might.  He  may  say  that  it 
is  decidedly  potential,  and  implies  possibility, 
power,  ivill,  and  this  is  all.  We  direct  him,  then, 
to  the  19th  verse  of  this  chapter,  which  has  already 
been  considered,  where  the  indicative  SHALL  de- 
clares the  veritable  fact  that  all  shall  find  righteous- 
ness by  Christ.  Besides,  we  ask  him  to  consider 
this  whole  subject,  to  take  in  all  the  connection, 
and  say  whether  terms  so  absolutely  universal,  and 
so  variously  diversified,  upon  so  glorious  a  subject, 
can  possibly  be  reconciled  with  the  limitation  of 
God's  blessings  through  Christ,  upon  the  lapsed  of 
Adam's  race.  We  are  satisfied  that  they  cannot. 

In  confirmation  of  the  views  here  expressed,  I 
cannot  refrain  from  introducing  an  extract  from 
Clarke's  works,  showing  that  not  only  Universalists, 
but  Partialists,  have  felt  the  force  of  the  apostle's 
language  here,  and  have  fairly  stumbled  on  the 
truth  unconsciously,  (at  least,  so  it  appears,)  in 
utter  contradiction  to  their  creeds.  We  give  it,  at 
any  rate,  as  an  ample  comment  on  the  text.  "  As 
extensively,  as  deeply,  as  universally  as  sin, 
whether  implying  the  act  of  transgression,  or  the 
impure  principle  from  which  the  act  proceeds, 
or  both,  hath  reigned ;  even  so,  as  extensively, 
deeply,  and  universally  might  grace  reign,  [here 
is  the  potential,]  filling  the  whole  earth,  and  per- 
vading, purifying,  and  refining  the  whole  soul, 
through  righteousness,  through  this  doctrine  of  free 
salvation,  unto  eternal  life,  by  Jesus  Christ  our 


138         UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

Lord.  Thus  we  find  that  the  salvation  from  sin 
here  is  [here  is  the  indicative]  as  extensive  and 
complete  as  the  guilt  and  contamination  of  sin : 
death  is  conquered,  hell  disappointed,  the  devil 
confounded,  and  SIN  TOTALLY  DESTROYED.  Here 
is  glorying,  to  him  that  loved  us,  and  washed  us 
from  our  sins  in  his  own  blood,  and  has  made  us 
kings  and  priests  to  God  and  his  Father,  be  glory 
and  dominion,  forever  and  ever,  amen!  Halle- 
lujah !  The  Lord  God  omnipotent  reigneth ! 
Amen,  and  amen."  Here  is  the  force  of  truth ; 
and  the  glory  of  truth.  Who  could  think  that  such 
an  exposition  of  this  Scripture,  and  such  an  excla- 
mation, would  proceed  from  a  partialist  believer  in 
the  endless  perpetuity  of  sin  and  misery  ?  Yet  so 
it  is,  that  truth,  v/hich  is  powerful,  will  sometimes 
apparently  make  men  forget  their  creeds,  and 
exult  in  the  salvation  of  the  world. 

Passing  over  the  remnant  of  this  Epistle,  we 
come  to  the  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  Part  of  the 
testimony  we  have  already  noticed  ;  but  there  is 
still  another  passage  which,  with  its  connection, 
asserts  the  universality  of  final  blessedness  :  "  As 
in  Adam  all  die,  even  so  in  Christ  shall  all  be  made 
alive."  (1  Cor.  xv.  22.)  If  the  word  in  the  first 
instance  conveys  the  idea  of  universality,  so  also 
must  it  in  the  second.  To  be  made  alive  in  Christ 
is  to  be  raised  to  a  state  of  immortality,  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  mortality  of  those  who  die  in  Adam. 
But  is  this  all  ?  Is  it  only  to  be  raised  to  immor- 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST   PART1ALISM.         139 

tality  ?  We  say,  that  it  is  to  be  raised  to  immor- 
tality and  glory.  For  the  apostle  goes  on  to  state 
the  order  of  the  resurrection,  (order  of  time,)  and  in 
the  three  orders  which  he  mentions  —  Christ  the 
first  fruits,  afterward  they  that  are  Christ's  at  his 
coming,  then  the  end,  when  all  enemies  shall  be 
subdued  unto  him,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all  — 
in  these  three  orders  or  successions,  all  mankind 
are  not  only  included  in  the  resurrection  of  immor- 
tality, but  in  the  resurrection  of  glory  ;  for,  as 
before  shown,  they  are  to  be  subjected  unto  Christ 
AS  he  is  to  the  Father !  And,  further,  no  man  has 
ever  yet  shown,  or  ever  can  show,  that  in  this  ac- 
count of  the  resurrection  of  immortality,  there  is 
any  limitation  in  number,  even  to  the  42d  verse, 
where  we  are  instructed  that,  "  So  also  is  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead.  It  is  sown  in  dishonor  ; 
it  is  raised  in  glory."  And,  further  yet,  (to  the 
49th  verse,)  "  As  we  have  borne  the  image  of  the 
earthy,  we  shall  also  bear  the  image  of  the  heaven- 
ly." And  so  on  till  verse  51 :  "  We  shall  all  be 
changed,"  and  "  Death,"  (verse  54,)  to  every  son 
and  daughter  of  Adam,  "  is  swallowed  up  in  vic- 
tory," and  the  apostle  renders  thanks  for  all, 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 

I  say,  no  man  has  ever  yet  shown,  or  can  show, 
that  there  is  any  limitation  in  numbers,  from  the 
all  that  die  in  Adam,  to  the  number  who  shall  be 
raised  in  glory  and  bear  the  image  of  the  heavenly. 
No,  the  chapter  is  a  glorious  one  —  the  best  one  in 


140         imiVERSALISM   AGAINST    PAKTIALISM. 

the  Bible  —  and  which  alone  would  render  the  Bible 
a  Universalist  look.  "  The  ultimate  and  universal 
prevalence  of  immortality,  virtue,  and  happiness  is 
thus  plainly  disclosed,  and  asserted  with  all  the 
energy  and  dignity  worthy  of  the  exalted  theme." 
Let  any  person  look  it  over  and  see  if  we  are  not 
correct.  It  avails  nothing  to  say  that  this  Epistle 
was  addressed  to  "  the  church  of  God."  We  know 
this :  still,  in  that  Epistle,  the  apostle  speaks  of 
mankind  at  large,  and  asserts,  most  plainly,  their 
resurrection  to  immortality  and  glory. 

We  pass  to  notice  further  testimony  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Philippians.  Speaking  of  Jesus,  the 
apostle  says,  "  Wherefore  God  also  hath  highly 
exalted  him,  and  given  him  a  name  which  is  above 
every  name  ;  that  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee 
should  bow,  of  things  in  heaven,  and  things  in 
earth,  and  things  under  the  earth  ;  and  that  every 
tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,* 
to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father."  (Phil.  ii.  9—11.) 
The  expression,  "  things  in  earth,  and  things  in 
heaven,"  is  allowed  by  the  best  Orthodox  commen- 
tators to  be  a  periphrasis  for  the  universe.  The 
language  is  absolutely  universal.  And  if  all  are  to 
bow  the  knee,  and  confess  Christ  to  the  FatherV 
glory,  what  must  be  this  state  of  things  ?  But  an 
objection  is  frequently  urged.  This  has  been 
affirmed  to  have  relation  to  the  simple  supremacy 
of  Christ,  when  all  shall  indeed  be  constrained  ta 
acknowledge  him,  but  not  all  as  subjects  of  his- 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.         141 

spiritual  kingdom.  In  other  words,  all  may  bow 
the  knee,  but  then,  with  some,  it  will  be  too  late 
for  repentance ;  and  all  may  confess  him  Lord, 
but  not  as  happy  subjects  of  his  reign,  for  the  day 
of  grace  to  some  will  be  forever  past.  In  short, 
this,  to  many,  will  not  be  a  willing  and  delighted,, 
but  rather  a  forced  subjection,  and  compulsory 
bowing  in  shrinking  terror  before  the  King  of  kings, 
O  ye  simple,  how  long  will  ye  love  simplicity  ? 
Does  the  apostle  say  aught  of  this  ?  Does  he  inti- 
mate that  a  part  are  to  bow  in  one  way,  and  a  part 
in  another  ?  No,  nothing  of  the  kind.  The 
apostle  makes  no  distinction,  and  why  should  any 
thus  pervert  his  meaning  to  favor  what  he  does  not 
teach  ?  Let  us  ask,  does  not  the  very  act  of 
bowing  signify  voluntary  homage  ?  And  if  the 
bowing  is  forced  and  extorted,  must  not  the  con- 
fessing be  so  likewise  ?  Surely  it  must  be.  But 
the  apostle  avers  that  every  tongue  shall  confess  to 
the  glory  of  God  the  Father.  And  can  it  be  any 
thing  to  the  Father's  glory  for  his  children  to  con- 
fess him  in  a  forced,  involuntary  manner  ?  Why, 
then,  present  us  with  such  strained  and  unnatural 
interpretations  ?  Is  it  to  favor  a  sinking  cause  ? 
The  apostle  distinctly  says  that  "  No  man  can  say 
that  Jesus  is  the  Lord,  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost.'1 
(1  Cor.xii.  3.)  And  can  it  be  in  a  forced,  involun- 
tary, shrinking  manner,  when  done  by  the  sweet 
influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?  "  Whoso  readeth, 
let  him  understand."  Professor  Stuart,  of  the 
13 


142         UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

Andover  Seminary,  says,  "  What  can  be  meant  by 
things  in  heaven,  that  is,  beings  in  heaven,  bowing 
the  knee  to  Jesus,  if  spiritual  worship  be  not 
meant  ?  "  And  we  may  echo  back  the  question, 
what  can  be  meant,  if  this  be  not  ? 

The  apostle,  in  his  letter  to  the  Colossians,  as- 
sures us,  however,  that  this  must  be  the  meaning, 
for  he  uses  the  same  periphrastic  phrase  for  the 
universe,  viz.  things  in  earth  and  things  in  heaven, 
and  uses  it  with  reference  to  their  reconciliation. 
"  For  it  pleased  the  Father  that  in  him  should  all 
fulness  dwell ;  and,  having  made  peace  through 
the  blood  of  his  cross,  by  him  to  reconcile  [not, 
then,  to  force  and  compel]  all  things  unto  himself; 
by  him,  I  say,  whether  they  be  things  in  earth,  or 
things  in  heaven."  (Col.  i.  19,  20.)  This  was  the 
good  pleasure  of  the  Father,  to  be  accomplished 
through  "  faith  grounded  and  settled "  in  Jesus 
Christ  his  Son ;  and  God  himself  hath  declared  to 
us,  "  My  counsel  shall  stand,  and  I  will  do  all  my 
pleasure."  (Isa.  xlvi.  10.) 

There  is  yet  another  passage,  which  is  the  last  that 
we  shall  notice,  recorded  in  Paul's  letter  to  Timo- 
thy. There  it  is  expressly  recorded  that  God  is 
the  Saviour  of  all  men.  The  apostle  declares, 
"  For  therefore  we  both  labor  and  suffer  reproach, 
because  we  trust  in  the  living  God,  who  is  the 
Saviour  of  all  men,  especially  of  those  that  believe." 
(1  Tim.  iv.  10.)  This  passage  is  direct  and  con- 
clusive. It  might  not  be,  were  it  not  for  the  latter 


UN1VERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.          143 

clause  of  it ;  but,  as  it  is,  the  very  thing  which  is 
generally  supposed  to  weaken  it  for  our  purpose, 
just  strengthens  the  argument  for  the  salvation  of 
the  world. 

In  the  first  place,  however,  let  us  remark  upon 
the  construction  which  is  put  upon  this  text  by  the 
limitarian  disciple.  He  would  declare  that  the 
text  in  question  only  expresses  a  willingness  with 
God  to  be  the  universal  Saviour,  but  that  those 
only  can  be  absolutely  saved  who  exercise  the  faith 
required.  I  charge  you  to  observe  and  remember 
that  the  text  has  not  this  idea  in  it  It  does  not 
read,  "God,  who  is  willing  to  be  the  Saviour  of 
all  men,  especially  of  those  that  believe."  No, 
this  is  far  from  the  style  of  the  apostle's  language. 
His  language  is  positive  and  absolute.  "  GOD  is 
THE  SAVIOUR  OF  ALL  MEN."  The  present  tense 
of  the  verb  may  require  of  us  to  substitute  the 
future,  as  God  who  will  be  the  Saviour  of  all 
men ;  but  it  does  not  authorize  us  to  destroy  the 
absoluteness  of  the  language,  and,  with  a  change 
of  tense,  to  effect  a  change  of  mood,  as,  God 
would  be  the  Saviour  of  all  men.  By  no  means 
can  we  take  this  liberty.  God  is  the  Saviour  of 
all  men  in  the  same  sense  that  Christ  was 
declared  to  be  the  Saviour  of  the  world,  even  be- 
fore many  who  now  are,  had  become  the  subjects 
of  his  kingdom.  Although,  then,  the  subject  re- 
quires a  change  of  tense,  I  repeat,  it  does  not  re- 


144         UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

quire,  but  rather  forbids,  a  change  of  mood  which 
would  destroy  the  absoluteness  of  the  declaration. 

But  it  is  objected,  again,  that  God  is  declared  to 
be  especially  the  Saviour  of  those  that  believe. 
But  this  destroys  not  the  strength  of  the  passage 
as  applied  to  our  purpose.  Because  the  apostle 
stated  first  that  God  was  the  Saviour  of  all  men, 
and  then  afterwards  added,  especially  of  those  that 
believe,  must  we  make  him  contradict  the  une- 
quivocal statement  which  he  made  at  first  ?  The 
whole  text  must  evidently  harmonize. 

But  the  worst  of  the  limitarian  interpretation  is 
yet  to  be  exposed.  Instead  of  the  inspired  reading 
of  the  text,  "  God  is  the  Saviour  of  all  men,  es~ 
pecially  of  those  that  believe,"  the  partialist  inter- 
preter would  have  it,  "  God  is  the  Saviour  of  no 
man  except  those  that  believe  !  "  Should  we  not 
tremble  for  such  utter  perversions  of  the  sacred 
text  ?  Is  not  this  a  desperate  effort  to  bend  the 
Scriptures  to  sustain  a  groundless  theory  ? 

But  what  will  be  done,  says  the  objector,  with 
the  special  nature  of  the  text's  latter  clause  ?  Does 
it  not  weaken  the  argument  therefrom  for  the  uni- 
versality of  God's  salvation,  We  answer,  instead 
of  weakening  the  argument,  it  just  strengthens  it. 
Observe,  if  God  was  not  the  actual  Saviour  of  aZZ, 
he  could  not  be  the  special  Saviour  of  any  !  How 
could  he  ?  Would  it  not  be  the  veriest  nonsense 
to  talk  of  a  special  salvation  if  there  were  no  com,- 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.          145 

mon  one  ?  Suppose  I  should  say,  I  will  preach  to 
all  the  congregation,  but  especially  to  the  church. 
Would  you  be  justified  in  reporting  abroad  that  I 
was  going  to  preach  only  to  the  church  ?  Or  sup- 
pose I  should  exhort  you  to  the  practice  of  all  the 
Christian  virtues,  but  especially  charity.  Would 
you  understand  me  to  say  omit  all  but  charity? 
You  see,  then,  that  the  qualifying  adverb  especially , 
in  connection  with  the  universal  aZZ,  instead  of 
weakening,  only  strengthens  the  supposition  that 
absolutely  all  is  meant.  For,  were  it  not  so,  there 
would  be  no  propriety  at  all  in  the  use  of  the  quali- 
fying adverb  especially. 

But  we  prefer,  after  all,  to  have  the  apostle  the 
interpreter  of  his  own  language.  It  is  manifestly 
a  just  rule  of  interpretation  to  allow,  in  a  connec- 
tion of  similar  character,  the  same  meaning  to  a 
person's  language  in  one  place,  as  is  evidently  sig- 
nified by  the  same  language  in  another.  Now  this 
same  apostle  thus  writes  to  the  Galatians :  "  As 
we  have,  therefore,  opportunity,  let  us  do  good 
unto  all  men,  especially  unto  them  who  are  of  the 
household  of  faith."  (Gal.  vi.  10.)  But,  accord- 
ing to  the  law  of  many  interpreters  with  reference 
to  the  passage  in  Timothy,  we  are  here  to  under- 
stand the  apostle  as  exhorting  his  Christian  breth- 
ren to  do  good  to  no  man,  except  the  household  of 
faith  !  Again,  this  same  apostle  writes  to  Timo- 
thy, "  The  cloak  that  I  left  at  Troas  with  Carpus, 
when  thou  comest,  bring  with  thee,  and  the  books, 
13* 


146      UNIVERSALISM:  AGAINST  PARTIALISM, 

but  especially  the  parchments."  (2  Tim.  iv.  13.) 
Now  this  apostle  would  have  hardly  conceived  his 
direction  obeyed,  had  Timothy  brought  only  the 
parchments,  and  left  the  cloak  and  the  books,  In 
like  manner,  we  contend  that  his  meaning  is 
abused,  when  we  make  him  say,  with  similar  Ian* 
guage,  that  God  is  the  Saviour  of  no  man,  except 
those  that  believe.  He  must  be,  evidently,  the 
actual  Saviour  of  all,  or  else  he  cannot  be  the 
special  Saviour  of  any.  Any  other  interpretation 
would  make  the  apostle  to  utter  unmeaning,  unin- 
telligible words.  Our  argument,  therefore,  from 
this  passage,  is  strengthened  by  the  very  phrase^ 
ology  which  is  usually  supposed  to  weaken  it* 
God  is,  absolutely  and  truly,  the  "  Saviour  of  all 
men ;  "  and  let  all  the  people  say,  Amen. 

But  what  is  this  special  salvation  to  believers  ? 
We  answer,  it  is  the  rest,  and  ptace,  and  holy  joy, 
which,  even  in  this  life,  is  consequent  upon  faith 
in  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  "  We  which  have  be- 
lieved, do  enter  into  rest."  (Heb.  iv.  3.)  "Now 
the  God  of  hope  fill  you  with  all  peace  and  joy  in 
believing."  (Rom.  xv.  13,)  "  Believing,  ye  re- 
joice with  joy  unspeakable  and  full  of  glory." 
(1  Peter  i.  8.)  This  is  the  special  blessing  and 
salvation  of  believers.  "  We  are  saved  by  hope" 
also.  (Rom.  viii.  24.)  We  are  saved  from  tor- 
menting doubts  and  fears,  We  are  saved  from 
despair,  and  the  otherwise  almost  insupportable 
load  of  the  troubles  and  adversities  of  life,  While, 


UNIVEKSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.          147 

to  the  poor  unbeliever  and  rejector  of  the  gospel, 
these  comforts  never  come ;  and  he  must  pass 
through  life  a  hopeless  wanderer,  shrouded  in  the 
gloom  of  dark  and  cheerless  infidelity.  Such  per- 
sons are  not  saved  ;  have  not  the  special  salvation, 
but  are  condemned.  "  For,"  says  the  Saviour, 
"  he  that  believeth  not  is  coridemned  already." 
(John  iii.  18.)  And,  again,  "He  that  believeth 
not  the  Son,  shall  not  see  life ;  but  the  wrath  of 
God  abideth  on  him  "  in  the  present  time,  and  so 
long  as  he  continues  in  his  unbelief."  (John  iii.  36.) 

This  may  suffice  for  an  exposition  of  the  last 
quoted  text,  in  proof  of  a  full  and  complete  salva- 
tion. And  no  other  view  of  God's  salvation,  per- 
mit me  to  remark,  can  possibly  be  reconciled  with 
that  emphatic  language.  We  rejoice  in  the  sim- 
plicity of  the  truth  (and  may  it  be  ours  to  prac- 
tise according  to  it,  and  secure  its  special  benefits  !) 
that  God  is  the  Saviour  of  all  men,  but  especial* 
ly  of  those  that  believe.  We  will  "  trust  in  the 
living  God,"  who  thus  manifests  himself  to  us, 
even  though,  as  did  the  apostle,  "we  therefore 
both  labor  and  suffer  reproach." 

We  thus  conclude  the  affirmative  testimony  on 
the  question  of  the  "  world's  salvation."  We  have 
given,  perhaps,  but  a  small  part  of  what  might  be 
given;  but  we  have  aimed  to  present  a  few  un- 
doubted passages,  and  to  trust  the  argument  from 
them.  We  are  quite  willing  to  rest  the  subject 
upon  what,  we  have  called  the  theology  of  the 


148         UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

question,  in  distinction  from  any  further  scriptural 
array.  That  is  a  pillar  immovable  ;  and  that  alone 
is  a  pillar  of  everlasting  truth.  Nay,  we  could  do 
with  the  very  PURPOSE  of  the  Almighty ;  but  when 
we  see  that  purpose  put  in  execution  —  when  we 
see  Jesus  sent  of  the  Father,  and  coming  to  accom- 
plish his  unalterable  will  —  and  when  we  see  the 
END  described,  the  grand  consummation  of  the 
divine  government  emphatically  declared  to  em- 
brace the  whole  in  a  resurrection  of  immortality 
and  glory,  —  we  are  more  than  doubly  assured 
that  this  is  Christianity  —  this  is  truth. 

V.  But  now,  says  the  reader,  are  there  not  other 
Scriptures,  of  equal  strength,  belonging  to  the  op- 
posite side  of  this  great  controversy  ?  Our  reply 
is,  first,  that  the  Scriptures  cannot  be  a  contradic- 
tion. (We  are  not  reasoning  with  infidels.)  If 
that  is  truth  which  we  have  quoted  in  such  abun- 
dance, it  must  at  once  be  manifest  that  no  other 
passage,  however  strong  or  highly  figurative,  can 
be  consistently  interpreted  to  contradict  that  which 
is  established.  There  are,  indeed,  other  Scriptures 
which  are  brought  forth  to  establish  the  opposite 
theory,  and  we  have  now  a  few  general  remarks 
to  offer  upon  them.  It  cannot  be  expected  that 
our  remarks  should  be  more  than  general,  for 
there  are  upwards  of  one  hundred  and  thirty  pas- 
sages made  use  of  to  establish  the  appalling  doc- 
trine of  endless  and  unutterable  torment.  For  an 
examination  of  the  whole  of  them,  I  refer  the  read- 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.          149 

er  to  a  work  recently  published,  entitled  the  "  UNI- 
VERSALIST'S  GUIDE,  by  TfwmasWhittemore"  Our 
remarks  must  be  general. 

It  is  a  source  of  satisfaction,  then,  to  know  that 
Universalists  are  not  the  only  persons  who  have 
given  these  passages  an  application  to  temporary 
punishments.  On  the  contrary,  limitarians  them- 
selves, and  even  eminent  commentators  and  critics 
in  their  ranks,  have  given  almost  all  these  Scrip- 
tures the  application  which  Universalists  also  are 
constrained  to  adopt  The  passages  which  are 
usually  considered  proof-texts  of  the  doctrine  of 
endless  misery,  are  generally  such  as  contain  the 
terms  hell,  judgment,  damnation,  perdition,  &c, 
and  the  phrases  everlasting  punishment,  second 
death,  unquenchable  fire,  everlasting  destruction, 
day  of  judgment,  &c.  Now,  every  one  of  these 
terms  and  phrases,  and  almost  every  other  pas- 
sage, both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  which 
is  made  use  of  in  our  day  to  establish  the  revolting 
doctrine  of  endless  torment,  have  been,  by  the 
most  respectable  Orthodox  authority,  applied  to 
scenes  of  the  present  life.  For  confirmation  of 
this  fact,  and  a  faithful  transcript  from  these 
writers  on  these  passages,  see  "  Paige's  Selections 
from  eminent  Commentators,  who  have  believed 
in  Punishment  after  Death ;  wherein  they  have 
agreed  with  Universalists  in  their  Interpretation  of 
Scriptures  relating  to  Punishment ; "  a  work,  by 
the  way,  of  invaluable  worth.  The  fact  we  have 


150         UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

staled  shows  the  unwarrantable  confidence  which 
is  placed  in  these  terms  arid  phrases,  as  proof  of 
endless  punishment.  Or,  at  least,  it  shows  that 
there  is  nothing  novel  in  the  Universal  ist's  view  of 
these  passages,  and  that  we  were  not  guided  by 
prejudice  alone,  or  an  overweening  anxiety  to  twist 
and  bend  these  Scriptures  for  the  support  of  a  fa- 
vorite system.  No ;  the  most  respectable  Ortho- 
dox commentators,  with  all  their  prejudices  and 
creed  against  it,  have  done  this  work  for  us. 

You  will  all  understand  what  I  have  affirmed.  I 
do  not  say  that  any  one,  or  two,  or  three  commen- 
tators, have  thus  interpreted  the  passages  referred 
to,  but  among  them  all  they  have  done  the  busi- 
ness ;  they  have  shown  that  almost  every  text 
which  is  usually  quoted  to  prove  this  doctrine,  does 
not  prove  it,  but  relates  to  temporal  calamities  al- 
together. This  shows  that  Universalists  are  not 
the  only  persons  who  have  thus  interpreted  these 
"  terrible "  passages.  It  shows  that  truth  is  felt, 
even  with  the  opposite  and  powerful  influence  of 
human  creeds  and  human  prejudice ;  and  that  the 
doctrine  of  endless  punishment,  instead  of  having, 
as  is  generally  supposed,  "hundreds"  of  unequiv- 
ocal texts  to  support  it,  has  only  a  few,  a  precious 
few,  which  all  its  advocates  can  agree  on  as  teach- 
ing it  to  man  !  This  is  a  fact  which  but  few,  very 
few  of  its  believers  are  aware  of.  They  frequent- 
ly accuse  Universalists  of  disagreement  among 
themselves,  but  little  thinking  that,  in  the  ranks  of 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.          151 

their  own  commentators,  so  little  agreement  exists 
with  regard  to  the  proof-texts  of  their  distinguished 
doctrine,  scarcely  imagining  that  among  them  all 
they  have  rejected  almost  every  text  which  is 
usually  supposed  to  reveal  this  blighting,  withering 
doctrine  to  the  world.  Universalists  are  far  more 
agreed  than  this,  and  are  ready,  at  any  time,  to 
present  an  array  of  scriptural  evidence,  unitedly 
and  firm,  and,  to  them,  invincible  to  all  attack. 

But  this  one  fact,  relative  to  the  almost  universal 
destruction  of  proof  by  the  public  defenders  of  the 
eternity  of  hell  torments,  on  scriptural  ground,  too, 
goes  an  amazing  way  towards  countenancing,  as 
eternal  truth,  the  doctrine  of  the  universal  redemp- 
tion and  sanctification  of  the  world.  It  ought  to  be 
looked  upon  with  seriousness,  with  reverence,  and 
holy  joy.  True,  they  were  men  who  have  thus  tes- 
tified. But  what,  in  reality,  do  we  see  in  it  ?  Men, 
eminent  for  learning  and  biblical  research,  strong  in 
the  faith  of  the  endless  condemnation  of  the  wick- 
ed, sitting  down,  with  care  and  prayer,  to  comment 
on  the  book  of  God's  revelation,  for  the  benefit  of 
honest  inquirers  after  the  way,  the  truth,  and  the 
life ;  and  holding  forth  such  truth  upon  almost 
every  passage  which  relates  to  punishment,  against 
creeds,  against  faith,  against  prejudice,  at  the  risk 
even  of  considered  eternal  interests,  where  con- 
science alone,  and  honest  conviction  of  the  truth, 
could  prompt  them  so  to  understand  God's  word ! 
We  hail  it  as  a  signal  testimony  to  the  truth  of  our 


152         ITNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

most  holy  faith  ;  a  testimony  given  by  men  who- 
would  be  the  first  to  oppose  it,  but  who  have  testi- 
fied in  all  honesty  and  faithfulness.  We  repeat,, 
no  one  man  has  done  it,  but  among  them  all,  they 
have  accomplished  the  work :  they  have  added 
their  almost  unbroken  testimony  to  the  truth  of  the 
Universalist's  interpretation  of  the  word.  Let  this 
fact  be  remembered,  and  let  this  suffice  for  this 
division  of  the  subject. 

We  bring  this  lecture  to  a  close.  We  trust  that 
we  have  shown  that  the  comprehensive  question, 
"  What  saith  the  Scripture  ?  "  may  be  answered 
much  in  favor  of  a  theology  which  honors  God  and 
preserves  the  dignity  of  man.  We  have  presented, 
in  the  four  lectures  which  have  already  been  de- 
livered, a  comprehensive  view  of  both  sides  of  the 
question,  —  both  partialism  and  universal  grace. 
Yet  our  labors  are  not  finished.  It  remains  to 
notice  the  several  objections  which  are  usually 
urged  against  the  universal  system,  and  to  point 
out  its  good  moral  tendency,  to  divest  it  of  all  that 
false  and  deceptive  imagery  which  the  men  of  the 
world  have  ever  thrown  around  it.  These  subjects 
will  furnish  the  matter  of  our  two  next  lectures, 
when,  I  trust,  the  doctrine  of  a  world's  salvation 
will  meet,  in  many  an  honest  heart,  the  response, 
w  Lord,  I  believe  ;  help  thou  mine  unbelief." 


LECTURE  V. 

A  REFUTATION  OF  THE  POPULAR  OBJECTIONS  AGAINST 
THE  DOCTRINE  OF  UNIVERSAL  SALVATION. 

I  think  myself  happy,  king  Agrippa,  because  I  shall  an- 
swer for  myself  this  day  before  thee,  touching  all  the  things 
whereof  I  am  accused  of  the  Jews.  Acts  xxvi.  2. 

SUCH  was  the  language  of  St.  Paul  before  a 
mixed  company  at  Cesarea,  addressed  especially 
to  a  Roman  king,  in  reference  to  certain  charges 
brought  against  him  by  the  Jews.  What  these 
charges  were,  may  be  gathered  from  the  chapter 
containing  his  address  to  the  king.  They  may  be 
generally  included  in  the  following  specifications. 
He  held  to  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  from 
the  dead  ;  that  Jesus  was  the  true  Messiah  ;  and 
that  he  should  be  salvation  to  the  Gentiles  as  well 
as  to  the  Jews.  These  things  were  very  obnoxious 
in  the  sight  of  the  bigoted  and  unbelieving  Jews ; 
and,  though  matters  of  good  faith  to  Paul,  and  of 
well-grounded  difference  of  opinion,  yet,  "  for 
these  causes,  the  Jews  caught  him  in  the  temple, 
and  went  about  to  kill  him."  We  need  not  state 
the  bitter  and  unprincipled  opposition  which  this 
14 


154         UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

illustrious  servant  of  God  met  from  this  perverse 
and  faithless  generation,  and  from  the  Gentiles 
also ;  suffice  it  to  say,  in  his  own  significant  lan- 
guage, he  "  both  labored  and  suffered  reproach,  for 
trusting  in  the  living  God,  who  was  the  Saviour  of 
all  men." 

An  opposition  and  a  spirit  of  a  similar  character 
have  lived  and  reigned  in  every  age,  from  the  time 
of  the  gospel's  promulgation  in  the  earth.  Perse- 
cution, abuse,  and  misrepresentation,  instead  of 
Christian  expostulation,  respectful  treatment,  and 
candid  exposition,  have  been  resorted  to  as  refuges 
of  power  when  sound  reasoning  and  Scriptural 
testimony  fail.  It  is  employed  at  the  present  day, 
in  a  most  signal  manner,  by  those  who  have  not 
the  ability  or  the  honesty  to  come  to  a  manly 
discussion  of  the  question,  upon  the  decision  of 
which  rests  the  destinies  of  the  world.  But  we 
do  not  complain  of  opposition;  we.  would  rather 
court  it.  What  we  complain  of  is,  the  character 
of  that  opposition,  and  the  perversity  of  that  spirit 
which  would  stifle  all  rnanly  investigation,  and  em- 
ploy uncharitable  abuse,  low  satire,  personal  in- 
vective and  ridicule,  on  a  subject  so  serious  as  that 
involving  infinite  and  eternal  interests.  Our  cause 
is  advanced  by  manly  opposition,  by  free  investi- 
gation, by  a  fair  and  candid  discussion  of  its 
claims.  And  those  who  have  generally  taken 
part  on  the  opposite  side  of  this  controversy  ap- 
pear to  know  this  ;  and  hence  there  have  been  no 


tTNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM.          155 

means,  however  dishonorable  and  deceptive,  which 
have  not  been  resorted  to,  and  turned  into  a  carnal 
and  offensive  weapon.  We  would  by  no  means 
include  all  who  have  warred  against  the  sentiment 
in  question,  in  this  dishonorable  charge  ;  for  we 
speak  of  the  general  character  of  that  warfare 
which  has  been  waged  against  the  theology  of  a 
free  redemption  and  sanctification  of  the  world.  A 
few  have  quitted  themselves  in  a  manly  and  a 
Christian  manner  ;  but  the  majority,  and  nearly  all, 
have  brought  disgrace  upon  themselves  and  their 
profession.  In.  the  first  place,  there  is  a  mortify- 
ing ignorance  of  the  system  they  attempt  to  over- 
throw ;  in  the  second  place,  an  unchristian  bitter- 
ness of  spirit  against  every  thing  that  comes  not 
within  their  views  of  theoretical  Christianity. 

These  remarks  have  been  called  forth  as  suited 
to  the  subject  and  the  occasion.  The  general 
character  of  the  objections  brought  forward  against 
the  doctrine  of  a  free  and  complete  salvation, 
evinces  not  only  an  ignorance  of  the  system  against 
which  the  objections  are  directed,  but  a  severity 
and  acrimony  of  temper  altogether  unsuited  to  a 
mind  deeply  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  the  gospel, 
Not  that  we  would  require  that  fastidiousness  which 
revolts  at  a  full  and  hearty  expression ;  but  only 
that  candor,  and  fairness,  and  decency,  which 
would  better  become  men  who  claim  all  the  piety 
and  all  the  religion  in  the  world,  and  who  may  be 
as  frail  and  fallible  as  —  even  ourselves. 


156         UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

But  it  is  time  to  notice  the  objections  which  are 
urged  against  the  system  in  question.  And  here 
be  it  remarked,  that  we  need  not  expect  any  thing 
so  very  formidable  as  one  might  be  supposed  to 
imagine,  when  we  are  told  of  the  utter  and  palpa- 
ble absurdity  of  all  our  views  and  principles. 
There  is  an  impression  that  that  thing,  Universal- 
ism,  is  a  creature  of  such  entire  deformity,  that 
"  to  be  hated,  needs  but  to  be  seen  ; "  that  it  is  so 
utterly  destitute  of  consistency  and  truth,  that  time 
and  labor  are  lost  in  the  consideration  of  its 
claims.  What  we  designed  to  say  was,  that,  if  it 
really  is  such  a  moral  monster,  it  would  be  a  very 
easy  thing  to  bring  it,  as  such,  forth  to  the  public 
gaze  ;  that,  if  it  be,  in  reality,  such  a  compound  of 
error  and  absurdity,  the  arguments  which  are 
urged  against  it  might  be  supposed  to  be  singular- 
ly formidable  ;  and  that  our  answers  thereto 
might  be  imagined  to  be  specimens  of  the  severest 
metaphysics  ;  where  all  the  sophistry  and  all  the 
ingenuity  that  could  possibly  be  mastered  would 
be  brought  forth  to  give  the  argument  a  character 
of  deep  perplexity.  But  I  put  the  congregation 
on  the  expectancy  beforehand,  that  no  such  knotty 
reasonings  need  be  looked  for ;  for  the  reason 
that  the  objections  to  be  noticed  we  do  not  con- 
sider so  absolutely  terrifying ;  and,  formidable  as 
they  may  be,  and  undoubtedly  are  deemed,  yet, 
to  our  minds,  they  are  not  of  this  discouraging 
character;  and  therefore  your  minds  will  not  be 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM,          157 

taxed  with  any  such  deep  and  intellectual  abstrac- 
tion. Indeed,  the  objections,  many  of  them,  are  of 
a  character  so  crude  and  lax,  that  one  can  some- 
times hardly  come  to  a  patient  consideration  of 
them  ;  or  at  least,  without  submitting  first  to  a 
slackening  of  all  his  mental  energies,  can  he  sit 
down  patiently  to  the  work  of  refutation. 

We  will  not  promise  to  bring  forth  every  objec- 
tion from  high  and  low,  which  has  ever  been 
urged  against  the  theory  of  universal  deliverance 
from  sin  and  sorrow  ;  for  that  would  be  to  scan  an 
endless  field  of  folly  and  perversity,  and,  by  a 
tedious  line  of  illustration,  to  concentrate  an  argu- 
ment of  great  comparative  strength,  for  that  entire 
depravity  for  which  our  Christian  brethren  contend. 
Be  it  ours,  at  the  present  time,  to  notice,  with  all 
due  respect,  the  strongest  and  most  popular  objec- 
tions which  are  urged  against  the  doctrine  in 
question. 

These  objections,  considered  worthy  of  notice  at 
the  present  time,  are,  in  number,  ten : 

I.  The  theory  in  question  is  denounced  as  the 
doctrine  of  the  devil ;  as  having  been  the  invention 
of  Satan,  who,  it  is  said,  first  preached  it  to  the 
woman  in  the  garden  of  Eden,  when  he  said  in  his 
deception,  "  Ye  shall  not  surely  die." 

II.  It  is  denounced  as  a  species  of  infidelity ; 
a  denial  of  some  of  the  fundamental   parts  of  the 
Christian  revelation. 

III.  It  is  objected  to  as  being  a  new  doctrine  ; 

I  A.* 


158         UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTI ALISM. 

an  innovation  upon  the  established  doctrines  of  the 
church. 

IV.  It  is  affirmed  to  be  the  production  of  a  one- 
sided view  of  the  Bible  ;  as  an    hypothesis  built 
upon  the  promises  of  God,  to  the  neglect  of  his 
most  awful  threatenings. 

V.  It  is  said  to  involve  an  absolute  denial  of  the 
justice  of  Jehovah. 

VI.  It  is  declared  to  be  the  result  of  an  unprinci- 
.pled  perversion  of  the  Scriptures. 

VII.  It  is   a   doctrine   said    to   be    particularly 
pleasing  to  the  carnal  mind. 

VIII.  It  is  also  affirmed  to  be  "  too  good  to  be 
true." 

IX.  It  is  said  to  be  built  upon  a  denial  of  the 
free  -agency  of  man. 

X.  It  is,  finally,  said  to  be  a  doctrine  which  will 
do  very  well  to  live  by,  but  will  not  do  to  die  by. 

Add  to  this,  that  it  is  also  denounced  as  a  device 
most  ruinous  to  the  souls  of  men,  being  of  a  terri- 
ble, demoralizing  influence  ;  which  objection,  from 
its  importance  and  prominency,  we  have  reserved 
for  a  separate  discourse  ;  and  we  have  here,  I 
.think,  a  very  candid  statement  of  the  principal 
objections  brought  against  us  by  "  those  of  the 
contrary  part." 

The  honest,  dignified,  and  intellectual  opponent 
may  find  it  hard  to  suppress  a  smile,  despite  of  the 
seriousness  of  the  subject.  And  if  he  can  patiently 
listen  to  us  while  we  come  down  to  answer  these 


TJNIVERSALISM    AGAINST   PARTIALISM.          159 

charges,  we  will  endeavor,  in  the  spirit  of  Paul 
before  Agrippa,  to  count  ourselves  happy,  because 
we  shall  answer  for  ourselves,  at  this  time,  touch- 
ing all  the  things  whereof  we  are  accused  of  the 
multitude. 

I.  The  doctrine,  then,  in  the  first  place,  is  de- 
nounced as  the  invention  of  Satan,  who  preached 
it,  originally,  to  Eve  in  the  garden  of  Eden.  This 
is,  indeed,  a  charge  of  some  magnitude ;  and  it 
would  be  singularly  mortifying,  as  well  as  singu- 
larly absurd,  could  we  truly  trace  the  doctrine  of  a 
world's  salvation  back  to  the  enemy  of  all  right- 
eousness as  its  source  and  origin  in  the  earth. 
But,  before  we  notice  the  absurdity  which  such  a 
supposition  involves,  it  were  well  to  ascertain  the 
truth  of  this  accusation,  by  looking  at  the  sermon 
which  the  devil  preached  on  this  occasion.  God, 
it  seems,  had  been  warning  Adam  of  the  fearful 
consequences  of  transgression  in  partaking  of  the 
tree  of  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  and  solemnly 
declared  that  of  this  he  should  not  eat ;  "  For  in 
the  day  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  surely  die." 
This,  be  it  recollected,  was  the  truth  of  God.  It 
was  inevitable,  and  not  to  be  despised.  Death, 
certain  and  unavoidable,  should  take  place  upon 
Adam,  on  the  very  day  of  transgression.  Now 
this  is  precisely  what  Universalists  preach.  They 
hold  forth  death  to  the  transgressor,  from  which 
there  can  be  no  escape.  And  this  punishment,  as 
in  the  case  of  Adam,  in  the  first  transgression,  is. 


160         UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

to  a  great  degree,  immediate  in  its  operations  :  it  is 
true  now  as  it  was  when  Adam  sinned,  — "  In  the 
day  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  surely  die,"  Be 
it  remembered,  that  this  was  not  natural  or  physical 
death ;  neither  was  it  eternal  death,  which  phrase 
does  not  occur  in  the  Bible.  It  was  not  natural 
death  which  took  place  on  that  day ;  for  Adam 
lived  many  hundred  years  after  that,  and  begat 
many  sons  and  daughters.  And  of  course,  if  it 
was  not  natural,  it  could  not  be  eternal  death ;  for 
that,  if  true,  cannot  take  place  till  after  the  body 
has  yielded  to  the  fell  destroyer.  It  must,  then, 
have  been  moral  or  spiritual  death ;  for  this,  in 
fact,  is  the  only  death  that  could  take  place,  ac- 
cording to  the  other  history  of  Adam,  upon  the 
day  of  his  transgression.  He  died  on  that  day, 
according  to  the  plain  and  unescapable  threatening 
of  the  Lord.  He  died  to  innocence,  to  virtue,  and 
to  so  much  of  happiness  as  was  the  consequence  of 
the  violated  law.  And  this  agrees  precisely  with 
the  representations  of  moral  death  given  by  the 
Old  Testament  writers,  by  Christ,  and  his  apostles. 
Wisdom  is  styled  life.  "  She  is  a  tree  of  life" 
says  the  wise  man,  "  to  them  that  lay  hold  upon 
her ;  and  happy  is  every  one  that  retaineth  her." 
(Prov.  iii.  18.)  Again,  "  Whoso  findeth  me,  find- 
eth  life."  (Prov.  viii.  35.)  Again,  "  In  the  way 
of  righteousness  is  life,  and  [on  the  other  hand]  in 
the  pathway  thereof  there  is  no  death"  (Prov. 
xii.  28.)  Jesus  also  himself  says,  "  If  a  man  keep 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTI ALISM.          161 

my  saying,  he  shall  never  see  death"  (John  viii. 
51.)  This,  evidently,  cannot  mean  natural  death; 
and  it  is  altogether  gratuitous  to  say  that  it  means 
eternal  death.  But  it  signifies  that  spiritual  death, 
which,  if  a  man  helieve  and  obey  the  gospel,  will 
never  be  his  portion  in  the  world.  Jesus  is  styled 
"  the  bread  of  life."  And,  again,  "  The  words  that 
I  speak  unto  you,  they  are  spirit  and  they  are 
life ; v  that  is,  they  quicken  and  invigorate  all  the 
inner  man.  The  apostle  also  assures  us  that  "  To 
be  carnally  minded  is  death."  (Rom  viii.  6.) 
Death  is  not  said  here  to  succeed  carnal-minded- 
ness  as  a  punishment,  though  this  may  be  a  truth 
asserted  in  other  places  ;  but  the  very  state  of  car- 
nal-mindedness  is  itself  a  state  of  death,  of  moral 
torpor  and  misery.  John  says,  "  He  that  loveth 
not  his  brother  dbideth  in  death"  (1  John  iii.  14) 
in  the  present  time.  In  precise  accordance  with 
this,  the  same  apostle  says,  "  We  know  that  we 
have  passed  [already  passed]  from  death  unto  life, 
because  we  love  the  brethren."  (1  John  iii.  14.) 

This  testimony  is  sufficient,  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  the  New,  to  show  that  death,  as  the  term 
frequently  occurs  in  the  Bible,  is  a  depraved  moral 
condition  in  the  present  life ;  a  death,  as  the  apos- 
tle significantly  expresses  it,  a  "  death  in  tres- 
passes and  sins." 

Now  this  is  the  death  which  Adam  was  threat- 
ened with,  and  of  which  he  died,  on  the  day  he 
tasted  of  the  forbidden  fruit.  The  history  of  his 


162         UN1VERSALI-SM    AGAINST    PART1ALISM. 

after  life  shows  that  it  could  be  no  other ;  and  the 
Scriptures,  as  we  have  seen,  are  in  full  accordance 
with  this  exposition  of  the  subject. 

This  is  the  death  God  preached  to  Adam,  and 
this  is  the  death  in  which  Universalists  believe. 
But  die  devil  contradicted  God.  "  The  serpent 
said  unto  the  woman,  Ye  shall  not  surely  die." 
Now  this  is  not  our  doctrine.  We  believe  no  such 
thing-  Do  we  not  invariably  .contend  for  a  death, 
—  a  punishment  in  the  day  of  transgression  ? 
Why,  then,  charge  us  with  preaching  the  devil's 
doctrine,  who  so  plainly  contradicted  this  threaten- 
ing of  the  Lord,  and  tliis  prominent  and  distinguish- 
ing tenet  in  the  Universalist's  faith?  God  said, 
*'  In  .the  day  lliou  eatest  tliereof*,  thou  shalt  surely 
die-"  This  is  what  we  believe-  This  is  the  faith 
of  Universalists.  The  devil  said,,  "  Ye  shall  not 
SURELY  die-"  We  reject  his  .testimony  as  false 
and  dangerous  to  rnen. 

But,  seeing  this  doctrine  is  not  ours,  it  were 
worth  a  while  to  inquire  whose  doctrine  it  is- 
Who  has  espoused  this  sentiment  of  Satan,  and 
who  is  guilty  of  the  charge  ?  My  brethren,  did 
you  ever  hear  sentiments  like  these  :  that  sin  was 
a  pleasant  thing  in  life  ^  that  many  fascinations 
and  many  delights  abound  in  the  paths  of  wicked- 
ness ;  that  it  is  even  true,  that  punishments  are  not 
inflicted  upon  many  transgressors  who  revel  in 
iniquity,  and  they  riot  in  an  intoxication  of  bliss, 
an  the  direst  depravity,  while  judgment  is  delayed, 


UN1VERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTI ALISM^ 

and  they  are  permitted  to  enjoy  their  sinftrl  pleas- 
ures, and  do  not  surely  and  inevitably  suffer  ?  Did 
you  ever  hear  a  worse  form  of  doctrine  ?  Did  you 
ever  hear  it  contended  for  earnestly,  that  sin  might 
be  reveled  in,  and  its  votaries  go  triumphing  on, 
from  day  to  day,  and  from  year  to  year,  escaping 
the  penalties  of  justice,  with  a  high  hand  and  an> 
outstretched  arm,  and,  by  a  timely  repentance, 
even  escape  the  retributions  of  eternity,  and  sit 
down  among  the  company  of  the  celestial,  thus? 
clearing  aZZ,  or  nearly  all,  the  judgments  of  the 
Lawgiver,  and  going  forever  unwhipped  of  justice? 
In  short,  did  you  ever  hear  it  virtually  and  substan- 
tially declared  that  the  sinner  does  not  surely  die 
in  life,  to  the  full  extent  and  meaning  of  the  law, 
and  does  not  surely  die  in  eternity,  but  may  even 
escape  that  threatening  evil  ?  If  you  have,  then 
you  need  not  be  at  a  loss  to  discover  the  practical 
adoption  of  the  devil's  doctrine,  and  —  please  lay 
the  charge  at  the  door  of  the  guilty, 

We  would  not,  certainly,,  thus  shift  the  charge 
upon  our  accusers,  did  it  not  furnish  an  instance  of 
most  righteous  retort,  and  signal  mistaking  of  the 
innocent  for  the  guilty.  It  is  they  who  preach  the 
devil's  doctrine,  —  they  who  "  put  far  away  the 
evil  day,"  and  steadfastly  maintain  that  in  the  day 
thou  sinnest,  thou  shalt  not  surely  die ! 

But,  again  —  for  we  wish  to  place  this  subject  in 
a  clear  light,  and  do  it  ample  justice  —  it  may  now 
be  seen  that  there  is  an  evident  absurdity  in  styling 


164         tJNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

Universalism  the  devil's  doctrine.  This  doctrine 
teaches  the  destruction  of  the  devil  and  all  his 
works  !  Is  it  supposable,  that,  if  the  devil  should 
set  out  to  invent  a  doctrine  to  suit  him,  he  would 
frame  one  that  taught  his  own  destruction  ?  that  he 
would  prophesy  his  own  downfall  and  his  own 
conquest  ?  Would  he  not  rather  frame  a  system 
of  divinity,  or  of  diabolism,  which  would  perpetuate 
his  own  reign,  and  assert  his  own  triumph  ?  If  we 
may  suppose  the  devil  possessed  of  that  cunning 
and  device  which  is  usually  ascribed  to  him,  he 
would  undoubtedly,  were  he  to  invent  a  system, 
maintain  the  empire  of  his  own  dominion,  and 
never  be  guilty  of  introducing  any  conqueror  who 
should  overrule  and  destroy  him  and  his  works.  I 
leave  it  again,  therefore,  to  the  audience,  to  say 
which  would  prove  most  likely  to  be  the  doctrine 
of  the  devil ;  that  which  involves  his  own  destruc- 
tion, and  asserts  that  one  mightier  than  he  shall 
"  finish  sin,  make  an  end  of  transgression,  and 
bring  in  everlasting  righteousness,"  or  that  which 
erects  his  kingdom  which  is  to  endure  forever,  and 
peoples  it  with  many  millions  of  souls,  the  fruit  of 
his  successful  enterprise.  I  speak  as  unto  wise 
men  :  judge  ye  what  I  say.  The  devil  is  declared 
to  be  "  the  enemy  of  all  righteousness."  We  may 
rest  assured,  then,  that  if  he  be  possessed  of  the 
least  particle  of  cunning  or  malignity,  he  never 
would  have  framed  such  a  righteous  system  as  the 
former;  but  unholiness,  blasphemy,  and  misery, 


T7NIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.         165 

would  be  his  delight,  and  the  characteristics  of  his 
kingdom.  Again,  it  should  be  recollected, "  Every 
kingdom  divided  against  itself  is  brought  to  deso- 
lation ;  and  every  city  or  house  divided  against  it- 
self shall  not  stand.  And  if  Satan  cast  out  Satan, 
[which  is  the  case  if  our  doctrine  be  his,]  he  is 
divided  against  himself ;  how  shall  then  his  king- 
dom stand  ?  "  You  will  at  once  perceive  that  the 
charge  of  advocating  the  devil's  doctrine  can  be 
brought  against  any  denomination  of  Christians 
under  heaven  with  vastly  more  propriety  than  it 
can  against  Universalists.  For  how  could  Satan, 
unless  he  has  become  vastly  changed  in  character, 
made  more  holy  and  less  powerful,  consistently 
advocate  a  doctrine  which  asserts  his  own  destruc- 
tion, divides  him  against  himself,  and  makes  it  out 
that  Jae,  who  is  the  enemy  of  all  righteousness,  has 
planned  a  system  of  universal  holiness  and  happi- 
ness !  O,  consistency,  thou  art  a  jewel. 

Once  more,  and  we  will  have  done  with  the 
subject.  In  order  to  guess ,  (for  this  is  the  best  we 
can  do,  seeing  there  will  be  a  difference  of  opinion 
on  it,)  in  order  to  guess,  then,  which  or  what 
wou  Id  be  the  devil's  theory,  were  he  to  invent 
a  sy  stem  and  palm  it  off  as  truth,  let  us  take  to 
imac  fining  what  sort  of  sentiment  he  would  delight 
in.  Those  who  profess  to  be  best  acquainted  with 
him  might,  perhaps  —  all  partiality  for  him  aside 
—  d«  o  the  work  better  than  we  can ;  but  we  will  try, 
and  this  for  the  elucidation  of  the  truth.  Here, 
15 


166         UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

then,  is  a  devil,  possessed  of  wisdom,  power,  and 
malignity,  to  a  terrible  degree;  and  now  let  us 
imagine  what  sort  of  system  he  would  invent,  if  he 
wished,  according  to  the  character  usually  ascribed 
to  him,  to  carry  on  as  much  deception  and  work 
as  much  evil  as  he  could.  His  first  object  would 
be  to  prevent  obedience  to  God's  great  commands, 
which  enjoin  love  and  loyalty  to  him,  and  love  to 
mankind  universally.  For  this  purpose,  he  would 
cunningly  devise  the  most  malignant  falsehoods  to 
blacken  and  reproach  his  character;  he  would 
represent  him  as  cruel,  partial,  and  vindictive ; 
asking  his  creatures  to  love  him,  when,  in  fact,  he 
had  either  created  and  determined  them  for  endless 
sufferings,  or  else  pretended  to  be  kind  by  offering 
enjoyment,  when,  in  fact,  he  knew  they  never 
could  obtain  it.  He  would  also  represent  the 
duties  God  requires  as  exceedingly  irksome  and 
difficult  of  performance,  causing  great  surrenders 
of  enjoyment ;  and  the  path  of  obedience  would  be 
represented  as  clogged  with  tribulation,  and  over- 
spread with  gloom.  And,  at  the  same  time,  if  they 
did  not  walk  therein,  they  would  be  threatened 
with  cruelties  unimaginable  and  of  endless  dura- 
tion. Vice,  on  the  other  hand,  would  be  repre- 
sented pleasant  and  agreeable  ;  while,  at  the  same 
time,  this  would  be  forbidden  on  pain  of  the  penal- 
ties aforesaid.  To  complete  the  shocking  cari- 
^ature  of  God's  character,  the  devil  would  tell 
them  that  they  were  by  nature  utterly  incapable  of 


UNI  VERBALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM.          167 

thinking  one  good  thought,  or  performing  one  good 
action,  and  constituted  with  an  irresistible  propen- 
sity to  evil,  and  that  continually ;  that  they  could 
do  nothing  of  themselves  to  better  their  condition  ; 
and  yet,  that  God  would  do  nothing,  until  they 
sought  out  the  good  work  themselves !  Thus 
might  the  devil  teach  and  preach,  and,  very  likely, 
he  would  succeed  in  discouraging  many,  and  driv- 
ing others  to  despair  and  suicide,  and  frightening 
the  rest  into  a  profession  of  his  doctrine,  as  a  very 
acceptable,  though  perfectly  unintelligible,  refuge 
for  the  salvation  of  their  souls. 

Having  accomplished  so  much,  the  next  thing  to 
be  done  would  be  to  prevent  obedience  to  the  great 
social  command,  —  love  to  universal  humanity. 
In  order  to  accomplish  his  devilish  design  here,  he 
would  begin  by  slandering,  at  wholesale,  human 
nature.  He  would  very  probably  assert  broadly, 
the  utter  corruption  and  malignity  of  the  human 
character ;  thus  representing  them  not  only  un- 
worthy of  love,  but  in  a  light  in  which  it  would  be 
irgpossible  to  exercise  a  particle  of  true  affection 
for  them.  This  done,  he  would  then  probably  tell 
them  —  make  them  believe  it  if  he  could  —  that 
God  himself  was  their  enemy ;  that  he  cherished 
an  infinite  and  unreconcilable  hate  for  them,  or  a 
greater  part  of  them  ;  and  then  leave  them  to  guess 
at  the  reasonableness  of  God's  command. 

Then,  if  the  devil  could  succeed  in  destroying 
love  for  God  and  man,  he  would  next  naturally 


168        UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

begin  to  assert  his  own  supremacy,  though  in  a 
way  in  which  his  subjects  should  not  suspect  his 
enmity  to  them.  But  in  his  system  would  be  in- 
cluded his  triumphant  reign  in  the  regions  of  guilt, 
and  darkness,  and  despair  ;  his  eternal  and  tyran- 
nical dominion  over  a  great  proportion,  all  he 
could  get  away  from  the  kingdom  of  the  Redeemer. 
Thus  would  lie  maintain  the  consistency  of  not 
predicting  his  own  destruction,  and  his  diabolical 
system  would  he  complete,  except  in  the  case  of 
offering  rewards  and  punishments :  the  rewards  he 
would  probably  place  far  off  in  the  distance,  so 
that  they  might  lose  all  good  effect ;  and  the  pun- 
ishments, the  evil  day,  would  also  be  put  far  away, 
in  order  thereby  more  effectually  to  carry  on  his 
deception,  and  flood  the  world  with  immorality  and 
crime. 

This  would  be  the  devils  doctrine,  at  least  as 
well  as  I  could  fancy  it,  and  I  would  not  claim  the 
merit  of  entire  fancy ;  and  I  now  give  up  for  some 
one  better  skilled  in  diabolical  devices. 

We  have  spent  much  more  time  upon  this  objec- 
tion than  its  weight  and  soundness  really  deserve, 
for  the  reason  that  this  is  the  first,  the  uppermost 
with  many  minds,  that  is  urged  against  the  system 
of  universal  and  efficient  grace.  It  pretends  to 
trace  the  system  back  to  its  origin,  —  to  the  father 
of  lies ;  and  if  we  have  done  any  thing  to  repel  it, 
may  it  result  to  the  honor  and  advancement  of  the 
truth.  I  beg  the  hearer  to  remember  that  the 


n  L.  i-  o  £    i 
UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.         169 

devil's  teaching  was,  In  the  day  thou  eatest  there- 
of, thou  shalt  not  surely  die,  which  is  exactly  the 
reverse  of  our  system  of  punishment ;  that  the 
popular  system  is  in  precise  accordance  with  the 
devil's  promise  of  delay  ;  that,  moreover,  the  charge 
to  us  of  teaching  Satan's  theory  involves  the  ab- 
surdity of  his  making  it  a  fundamental  part  in  his 
system  to  insist  upon  his  own  destruction,  with  all 
that  appertains  to  him  ;  also,  of  dividing  him  against 
himself,  and  making  it  out  that  he  who  is  the 
enemy  of  all  righteousness  has  shown  himself 
mightily  in  favor  with  a  pure  and  spotless  system 
of  universal  holiness  and  joy  !  !  Remember  these, 
with  the  other  particulars  with  regard  to  what 
probably  would  be  the  devil's  theory,  were  he  to 
invent  one  and  palm  it  off  as  truth  ;  and  then  we 
will  conclude  this  portion  of  our  subject  with  the 
caution,  that "  those  who  live  in  glass  houses  should 
not  throw  stones  !  " 

II.  Another  objection  against  the  system  of  truth 
we  advocate  is,  that  it  is  a  species  of  infidelity,  —  a 
denial  of  some  of  the  fundamental  parts  of  the 
Christian  revelation.  This  objection  is  of  such  a 
nature  that  we  need  spend  but  little  time  upon  its 
claims.  It  is  usually  given  forth  in  a  style  of  bitter 
and  uncharitable,  not  to  say  dishonest,  perversity 
of  heart,  for  this  reason,  candid  hearer :  those 
who  ,make  use  of  it  as  a  weapon  against  us,  know 
that  we  have  no  sympathy  for  infidelity ;  that  we 
cordially  reject  its  cold  and  faithless  spirit;  and 
15* 


170         TTNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

that  there  is  no  principle  we  more  studiously  ad- 
here to,  in  the  support  of  our  doctrines,  than,  What 
saith  the  Scriptures  ?  We  may  be  in  error  in  our 
interpretation  of  the  Scriptures,  and  so  may  our 
accusers ;  but  that  we  reject  the  Scriptures,  that  we 
secretly  or  openly  countenance  the  principle  of  un- 
belief in  any  of  the  matter  of  their  testimony, —  this 
is  a  charge  which  comes  with  an  ill  grace  from 
those  with  whom  it  is  as  far  from  their  house  to 
ours  as  it  is  from  ours  to  theirs.  And  it  is  upon 
this  principle  that  we  may  with  as  much  propriety 
bring  the  charge  of  infidelity  against  them,  for  not 
believing  as  -we  honestly  do,  as  they  bring  it 
against  us.  But  we  have  no  disposition  so  to  do. 
Both  may  be  mistaken  in  their  views  of  Christian- 
ity ;  but,  be  it  remembered,  both  honestly  receive 
the  Bible  as  the  rule  and  directory  of  faith.  And 
what  aggravates  the  charge  when  brought  against 
us  is,  that  those  who  bring  it  know  that  we  are  not 
atheists,  nor  deists,  nor  skeptics,  in  any  of  what 
we  conceive  to  be  the  essentials  or  minutia?  of  the 
Christian  revelation.  They  know  it;  and  hence 
they  must  settle  the  matter  with  their  own  con- 
:sciences,  when  they  bring  the  heavy  charge  of  in- 
fidelity against  us.  We  acknowledge  that  we  may 
l>e  mistaken ;  that  we  are  not  infallible ;  and  we 
.ask  and  expect,  in  modesty,  the  same  acknowledg- 
ment from  them.  But  that  we  disbelieve  or  explain 
;away  any  one  point  which  we  think  the  Bible 
>teaches,  is  a  charge  as  unjust  and  uncharitable  as 


ttNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.          171 

it  is  false.  We  shall  not  allow  them  to  point  out 
and  dictate  to  us  what  the  Bible  does  teach,  any 
more  than  they  would  allow  us  to  point  out  and 
dictate  to  them.  In  fact,  this  charge  of  infidelity 
from  one  Christian  sect  to  another  resolves  itself, 
finally,  into  the  assumed  infallibility  of  the  princi- 
ples and  doctrines  of  either  sect  which  first  brings 
the  charge ;  so  that  every  individual  member 
thereof  may  at  once  assume  the  prerogative  and 
dignity  of  the  pope  of  Rome,  and  haughtily  issue 
forth  his  bulls  and  edicts,  and  charges  of  heresy, 
infidelity,  or  apostasy,  against  every  other  indi- 
vidual who  may,  as  honestly  as  he,  hold  to  a  dif- 
ferent form  of  doctrine  from  his  own.  We  hearti- 
ly abominate  the  practice,  prevailing  as  it  does 
between  the  different  sects  in  Christendom ;  and 
can  but  look  upon  it  as  a  weak  and  unreasonable 
attempt  to  cast  reproach  upon  an  honest  body  of 
Christians  who  verily  "  believe,  and  do  testify,  that 
the  Father  sent  the  Son  to  be  the  Saviour  of  the 
world ; "  moreover,  who  believe  in  the  complete 
success  of  this  mission,  staggering  not  at  the  prom- 
ises through  unbelief. 

This  leads  us,  in  the  second  place,  to  remark, 
that  it  is  not  generally  against  the  matter  of  uni- 
versal salvation  that  the  charge  of  infidel  senti- 
ments is  brought,  but  against  Universalism  as  a 
system  involving  other  points  of  doctrine.  The 
remarks  already  offered,  however,  apply  to  every 
article  of  our  faith,  and  render  the  charge  unjust 


172         UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

and  false.  We  remark,  now,  that,  so  far  as  the 
matter  of  salvation  is  concerned,  instead  of  being 
infidels,  we  believe  too  much,  rather  than  not 
enough,  for  our  brethren  of  the  "  contrary  part." 
We  believe  too  much ;  this  is  the  difficulty  ;  this  is 
the  occasion  of  their  reproach.  Their  faith  is 
narrow  and  contracted  ;  ours,  broad  and  universal. 
Infidelity  lurks  not  in  this  portion  of  the  Universal- 
isfs  faith.  We  feel  it  full  and  strong,  rising  and 
expanding,  like  Peter's  vision  of  the  sheet,  knit  at 
the  four  corners  of  the  universe  and  let  down  to 
earth.  "  Blessed  are  the  people  who  know  the 
joyful  sound  :  they  walk  in  the  light  of  thy  counte- 
nance, O  Lord."  The  Saviour  to  us  is  the  Saviour 
of  the  world-  Salvation  to  us  is  deliverance  from 
universal  sin,  and  ignorance,  and  imperfection. 
With  the  eye  of  faith  we  see  "  death  conquered, 
hell  disappointed,  the  devil  confounded,  and  sin 
totally  destroyed."  God  save  us  from  any  doubt 
or  skepticism  here.  Let  the  shield  of  faith  be  per- 
fect and  entire,  protecting  us  against  every  in- 
sidious attack.  Let  the  helmet  of  salvation  shield 
our  heads  from  the  blow  of  the  battle-axe  that  can- 
not cleave.  Let  faith  be  universal,  and  hope  be 
full,  till  faith  and  hope  are  realized  on  high,  and 

"  The  anthem  long  and  loud  shall  swell, 
Our  Saviour  hath  done  all  things  well." 

We  remark,  in  the  third  place,  that  so  far   is 
Universalism  from  infidelity,  that  it  has  saved  num? 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.         173 

lers  from  the  black  and  turbid  waters  of  unbelief, 
and  given  them  a  faith  to  go  on  their  way  rejoic- 
ing. Friends,  brethren,  consider  this  truth.  Many 
are  the  minds  that  can  testify  to  this,  that,  had  it 
not  been  for  a  system  of  benevolence  and  ration- 
ality, they  would  have  wandered  in  the  way  of 
darkness  unto  death.  Unsatisfied  with  the  doc- 
trines of  the  church,  which  to  them  appeared  un- 
reasonable and  unworthy  of  belief,  and  still  be- 
lieving the  Bible  to  countenance  these  doctrines, 
they  have  closed  up  their  Bibles,  and  become 
infidels  outright.  Infidelity,  to  them,  appeared 
more  reasonable  than  the  appalling  and  unintelli- 
gible doctrines  of  the  church.  The  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  they  could  not  assent  to;  total  depravity 
they  felt  to  contradict  and  dishonor  the  noblest  and 
most  obvious  principles  of  human  nature  ;  vicarious 
atonement  they  felt  to  be  unjust  and  appalling; 
imputed  righteousness  or  guilt,  they  felt  to  be  im- 
possible ;  and  endless  torments  they  rejected  as  an 
unparalleled  abomination.  They  thought  these 
doctrines  sanctioned  by  the  Bible  ;  they  turned 
from  their  Bibles  to  the  fairer  works  of  nature,  and 
rejoiced  and  triumphed  in  their  unbelief.  But  the 
Spirit  of  God  again  moved  upon  the  waters  ;  they 
resolved  to  be  free  from  the  bias  of  human  creeds ; 
they  again  turned  the  eye  of  earnestness  upon  the 
pages  of  the  Bible,  and  there,  from  the  fountain- 
head  of  inspiration,  they  drank,  and  lived  again. 
They  became  convinced  that  the  Bible  favored  not 


174         UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

these  time -venerated  doctrines ;  that  it  spoke  a 
different  language ;  and  God  put  a  new  song  into 
their  mouth,  the  song  of  praise  unto  our  God,  of 
redemption  and  salvation  to  the  ends  of  the  earth. 

This  is  no  ideal  picture ;  but  the  truth,  as  thou- 
sands could  attest,  who  have  experienced  the 
workings  of  error  and  truth  upon  their  minds. 
And  no  wonder  that  many  have  been  driven  to  in- 
fidelity by  the  utterly  irrational  and  appalling  doc- 
trines of  the  church.  Convince  me  that  the  Bible 
favors  one  of  these  doctrines,  and  you  destroy  the 
harmony  between  faith  and  reason,  and  cast  the 
shadow  of  deformity  upon  ^all  its  pages.  Not  that 
my  faith  is  grounded  upon  reason  and  not  upon  the 
Bible  ;  but  that  heretofore,  the  Bible,  has  appeared 
to  me  a  reasonable  book ;  but  that  then,  it  would 
be  utterly  repulsive  and  shocking  to  behold.  I 
rejoice  in  a  reasonable  faith.  I  would  not  adopt, 
to  the  full  extent,  the  couplet  of  the  poet : 

"  Bow  down,  sense  and  reason: 
Faith  only  reigns  here." 

And,  strange  as  it  may  appear,  it  is  the  opinion 
of  many  enlightened  and  sagacious  observers,  that 
the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  total  depravity,  vicari- 
ous atonement,  imputed  guilt  and  righteousness, 
and  endless  torments,  have  made  more  infidels 
than  all  the  infidel  writers  the  world  ever  pro- 
duced. I,  for  one,  believe  this  truth.  And  I  not 
only  believe,  but  I  know,  that  the  doctrine  of  uni- 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.         175 

versal  salvation  from  sin  and  suffering  has  saved 
thousands  of  infidels,  who,  without  this  light,  would 
have  gone  down  to  their  graves  in  hideous  dark- 
ness. These  thousands  are  now  rejoicing  believers 
in  a  nobler  system  of  divine  truth ;  the  grave  to 
them  has  lost  its  power ;  light  immortal  has 
beamed  out  from  beyond  it ;  they  have  become 
convinced,  by  careful  study,  that  the  Bible  is  a  dif- 
ferent book ;  and  they  can  now  sing,  "  Glory  to 
God  in  the  highest ;  on  earth,  peace  and  good- will 
to  men."  God  grant  that  converts  may  be  multi- 
plied, till  the  objection  that  Universalism  is  a 
species  of  infidelity  may  stand  refuted  by  the 
testimony  of  thousands  more,  who  shall  rise  up  and 
bless  the  day  when  a  system  so  rational  and 
glorious  poured  a  flood  of  heavenly  daylight  in 
upon  their  understandings,  and  struck  off  from 
their  minds  the  degrading  shackles  of  infidelity 
and  sin. 

III.  It  is  again  objected,  that  Universalism  is  a 
new  doctrine,  an  innovation  upon  the  established 
doctrines  of  the  church.  In  the  first  place,  the 
objector  himself  shall  answer  this  objection.  He 
has  just  told  us  that  it  is,  at  least,  about  six  thousand 
years  since  the  devil  preached  it  in  the  garden  of 
Eden !  How,  then,  can  he  now  turn  right  about 
and  call  it  a  new  doctrine  ?  He  should  be  care- 
ful, else  one  falsehood  will  destroy  another  as  fast 
as  ingenuity  invents.  It  is  paying  a  better  com- 
pliment to  Universalism  than  can  be  paid  to  Ortho- 


176         UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

doxy  —  if,  indeed,  it  may  to  either  be  considered  a 
compliment — to  say  that  it  is  six  thousand  years  old, 
But  we  do  not  crave  the  compliment  of  such  anti- 
quity as  this.  We  go  for  the  proposition  that  it  is 
as  old  as  Christianity,  and  we  put  our  brother  of 
the  opposite  faith  upon  the  task  of  proving  that  his 
system  is  even  thus  venerable.  We  speak  now  of 
the  teachings  of  Christ  and  his  apostles. 

To  be  sober  about  it,  this  is  not  the  first  time  the 
cry  of  innovation  has  been  raised.  When  a  cer- 
tain itinerant  preacher  arrived  in  the  city  of  Athens* 
there  was  great  concern  lest  the  established  reli- 
gion should  be  overthrown.  "And  some  said, 
What  will  this  babbler  say  ?  other  some,  He 
seemeth  to  be  a  setter  forth  of  strange  gods ;  be- 
cause he  preached  unto  them  Jesus  and  the  resur- 
rection. And  they  took  him,  and  brought  him 
unto  Areopagus,  saying,  May  we  kngw  what  this 
new  doctrine  whereof  thou  speakest  is  ?  "  (Acts 
xvii.  18,  19.)  And  after  the  preacher  had  declared 
to  them  the  God  they  ignorantly  worshipped,  who 
was  Lord  of  all,  and  Father  of  all,  &c.  some 
mocked,  as  at  the  present  day,  at  a  doctrine  which 
they  did  not  understand  ;  while  a  few  only  of  the 
multitude  clave  unto  him  and  believed. 

When  Martin  Luther  thundered  against  the 
errors  and  corruptions  of  the  Catholic  Church,  the 
popes  undoubtedly  cried  innovation.  Luther  held 
forth  his  "  new  doctrine,"  and  brandished  it  most 
successfully  against  them. 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM.          177 

So,  when  John  Murray  published  abroad  in  this 
country  the  doctrine  of  a  world's  salvation,  the 
multitude  cried,  innovation  !  heresy  !  Unquestiona- 
bly it  was  new  to  them,  who  were  born  in  darkness, 
brought  up  in  darkness,  and  instructed  in  darkness. 
The  light  appears  very  new  to  a  blind  man  who 
has  just  received  his  sight.  Old  things,  we  are 
assured,  will  one  day  pass  away,  and  all  things  be- 
come new.  This  shall  be  at  the  time  when  there 
shall  be  no  more  death,  neither  sorrow  nor  crying ; 
neither  shall  there  be  any  more  pain ;  for  the 
former  things  shall  have  passed  away. 

To  come  more  directly  to  the  subject,  to  the 
charge  of  preaching  a  new  doctrine,  let  us  observe 
how  utterly  without  foundation  this  accusation  is. 
We  know  that  the  doctrine  of  a  partial  salvation 
has  prevailed  most  extensively  for  many  centuries 
in  the  Christian  era  ;  but  this  furnishes  no  argu- 
ment for  its  truth ;  besides,  it  cannot  be  shown,  by 
an  appeal  to  history,  that  the  doctrine  of  universal 
salvation  did  not  prevail  with  it  in  every  age  of 
Christianity ;  or  that  the  doctrine  of  endless  tor- 
ments was  published  at  all,  as  a  Christian  doctrine, 
in  the  first  and  early  ages  of  the  church.  On  the 
contrary,  it  can  be  shown,  by  a  concurrent  line  of 
history,  that  Universalism  has  prevailed  in  every 
age  from  the  time  of  the  apostles  ;  and  that  the 
doctrine  of  endless  torments  was  not  known,  as  a 
Christian  doctrine  —  mark  the  expression  —  was 
not  known>  so  far  as  we  have  any  account,  until  the 
16 


178         UNI  VERBALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

commencement  of  the  third  century  of  the  Chris- 
tian church.  It  was  then  taught  by  Tertullian  of 
the  Latin  church  ;  and,  from  all  you  can  find  in 
the  history  of  past  antiquity,  he  is  the  first  Chris- 
tian writer  who  ever  asserted  that  the  torments  of 
the  damned  would  be  equal,  in  duration,  with  the 
happiness  of  the  blest.  Believer  in  endless  misery, 
reflect  upon  this  truth.  Ye  who  denounce  Univer- 
salists  as  innovators,  as  the  publishers  of  a  new 
doctrine,  come  and  learn  wisdom  and  humility. 
Two  hundred  years  had  passed  from  the  establish- 
ment of  Christianity,  and  till  that  time,  if  the  voice 
of  history  may  be  credited,  no  Christian  writer 
ever  taught  your  doctrine  of  endless  sin  and  wo. 

More  than  this,  what  is  called  the  Epistle  of 
Barnabas,  an  allegorical  and  mystical  work,  written 
about  the  year  131,  is  the  first  Christian  writing 
extant,  after  the  sacred  Scriptures,  in  which  we 
find  the  word  everlasting  or  eternal,  applied  to 
human  suffering.  "  But  whether  he  thought  it 
endless,  cannot  be  determined  ;  as  the  word  ever- 
lasting or  eternal  was  used  by  the  ancients  to 
denote  indefinite  rather  than  interminable  dura- 
tion." * 

Tertullian,  then,  for  aught  that  appears  to  the 
contrary,  must  claim  the  honor,  or  rather  the  dis- 
honor, of  first  teaching  as  a  Christian  truth  the  ap- 
palling and  tremendous  error  of  endless  torments 

*  Ancient  History  of  Universalism,  p.  37. 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM.          179 

for  God's  rational  offspring.  This  was  about  the 
year  200.  Verily,  it  had  no  part  or  lot  in  the  matter 
of  the  gospel ;  that  good  old  doctrine  proclaimed 
two  hundred  years  before,  by  the  angel  from  heaven 
to  the  shepherds  on  the  plain  !  Compare  the  spirit 
of  Tertullian  with  the  spirit  of  Jesus  Christ.  The 
latter  wept  over  the  prospective  calamities  of  Jeru- 
salem, horrible,  yet  temporal  and  ending.  "  He 
beheld  the  city  and  wept  over  it,"  evil  and  iniqui- 
tous as  it  was.  Tertullian  exclaimed,  in  the  true 
spirit  of  his  doctrine,  "  How  shall  I  admire,  how 
laugh,  how  rejoice,  how  exult,  when  I  behold  so 
many  kings,  worshipped  as  gods  in  heaven,  together 
with  Jove  himself,  groaning  in  the  lowest  abyss  of 
darkness !  So  many  magistrates  who  persecuted 
the  name  of  the  Lord,  liquefying  in  fiercer  flames 
than  ever  kindled  against  Christians  ;*  so  many  sage 
philosophers  blushing  in  raging  fire,  with  their 
scholars  whom  they  persuaded  to  despise  God,  and 
to  disbelieve  the  resurrection ;  and  so  many  poets 
shuddering  before  the  tribunal,  not  of  Radaman- 
thus,  not  of  Minos, 'but  of  the  disbelieved  Christ ! 
Then  shall  we  hear  the  tragedians  more  tuneful 
under  their  own  sufferings ;  then  shall  we  see  the 
players  far  more  sprightly  amidst  the  flames  ;  the 
charioteer  all  red-hot  in  his  burning  car ;  and  the 
wrestlers  hurled,  not  upon  the  accustomed  list,  but 
on  a  plain  of  fire."  * 

*  Ancient  History  of  Universalism,  p.  81. 


180         UNIVEUSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

Compare  the  spirit  of  Tertullian  with  the  spirit 
of  Jesus  Christ!  The  latter  wept,  the  former 
laughed,  at  the  spectacle  of  human  misery ! 
Surely,  among  all  the  early  fathers,  there  was 
none  whose  spirit  better  accorded  than  Tertullian's 
with  this  cruel  and  antichristian  doctrine  of  end- 
less torment.  He  dwelt  upon  it  with  a  relish  that 
savored  of  the  imaginary  hell  he  taught.  To  him 
might  well  be  awarded  the  distinction  of  intro- 
ducing this  doctrine  to  the  Christian  church ! 

With  regard,  now,  to  the  doctrine  of  universal 
salvation,  so  far  from  being  a  new  doctrine,  it  can 
be  distinctly  traced,  from  century  to  century,  back 
to  the  first  and  second  centuries  of  the  Christian 
era,  and  proved  to  be  the  faith  of  many  of  the 
Christian  fathers,  among  whom  were  Clemens 
Alexandrinus  in  the  second,  and  Origen  in  the 
third  century ;  and,  in  fact,  prevailed  extensively 
in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries,  and,  for  aught 
that  appears  to  the  contrary,  was  accounted  the 
true  Christian  faith.  It  was  not  an  object  of  perse- 
cution :  though  other  doctrines,  and  even  opposite 
ones,  prevailed  at  the  same  time,  yet  no  unhappy 
contests  or  dissensions  were  created  in  consequence 
thereof.  One  fact  should  be  specially  noted  and 
remembered.  This  doctrine  was  never  publicly 
condemned  till  by  the  fifth  general  council,  in  the 
year  553.  It  revived  at  the  period  of  the  Refor- 
mation, and,  since  that  time,  has  been  advocated 
by  many  able  and  fearless  minds,  and  believed  by 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.          181 

many  more  timid  and  fearful,  who  have  dreaded 
the  sacrifice  of  popular  esteem  which  an  open 
avowal  of  their  faith  would  at  once  demand  of 
them  to  make.  In  Switzerland,  in  Germany,  in 
Scotland,  and  in  England,  it  has  found  its  advo- 
cates, among  whom  we  might  mention  Lavater, 
Everhard,  Stilling,  Douglass,  T.  Southwood  Smith, 
Bishop  Newton,  Hartley,  Priestly,  Belsham,  and 
many  others.  At  the  present  time,  it  finds  its 
most  extensive  reception  in  England,  Germany, 
and  the  United  States  ;  the  numbers  in  our  own 
country  amounting  to  upwards  of  seven  hundred 
thousand ;  and  this,  it  must  be  observed,  is  the 
growth  of  about  seventy  years.  It  was  a  "  new 
doctrine,"  —  it  might  have  been  considered  such 
to  the  people  of  this  country  one  hundred  years 
ago,  or  even  seventy ;  but,  from  its  rapid  increase, 
it  bids  fair  to  arrive  at  a  good  old  age ;  and  God 
grant  that  the  light  may  roll  onward,  till  the  whole 
earth  is  flooded  with  his  glory !  It  is  not  a  new 
doctrine  ;  it  is  old  as  Christianity.  Yea,  it  claims 
a  higher  antiquity  :  it  was  published  in  the  garden 
of  Eden ;  not  by  Satan,  but  by  him  who  said  the 
seed  of  the  woman  should  "  bruise  the  serpent's 
head."  There  was  the  great  conquest  over  sin 
predicted.  Yet  the  patriarchs  caught  clearer 
glimpses  of  it.  It  was  -contained  in  the  promise 
to  Abraham  to  bless  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  in 
Christ.  Christ  taught  it  when  he  said,  "  And  I,  if 
I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all  men 
16* 


182         UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

unto  me."  The  apostle  taught  it  when  he  said 
God  would  "  have  all  men  to  be  saved,  and  come 
unto  the  knowledge  of  the  truth."  It  has  lived 
through  every  century  of  the  Christian  church  ;  it 
triumphs  at  the  present  day ;  and  it  will  be  con- 
summated only  in  eternity,  when  all  of  every 
nation,  kindred,  and  tongue,  shall  strike  the  chords 
that  sweep  o'er  angel  lyres,  —  "Unto  him  who 
loved  us,  and  washed  us  from  our  sins  in  his  own 
blood,  to  him  be  glory  and  dominion  forever." 

IV.  Another  objection  is,  that  Universalism  is 
the  production  of  a  one-sided  view  of  the  Bible, — 
an  hypothesis  built  upon  the  promises  of  God,  to 
the  neglect  of  his  most  awful  threaten  ings.  To 
this  let  us  answer,  that  we  profess  to  believe  the 
whole  Scriptures,  and  that  those  Scriptures  present 
to  us  a  connected  and  harmonious  system  of  divine 
grace.  The  nature  of  the  charge,  therefore,  seems 
to  carry  with  it  a  large  measure  of  its  refutation. 
We  are  not  possessed  of  such  narrow  discernment 
as  to  believe  —  phrenologically  speaking  —  with 
one  side  of  our  marvellousness,  that  the  Bible 
teaches  truth  when  it  says,  u  God  will  have  all 
men  to  be  saved  ; "  and  with  the  other  side  of  that 
organ,  that  he  has  threatened  endless  banishment 
from  him.  The  promises  and  the  threatenings,  to 
our  minds,  come  from  the  same  Jehovah  ;  and  that 
Jehovah  "is  not  a  man,  that  he  should  lie ;  nor  the 
son  of  man,  that  he  should  repent.  Hath  he  said, 
and  shall  he  not  do  it  ?  or  hath  he  spoken,  and 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM.          183 

shall  he  not  make  it  good  ? "  Evidently,  if  we 
build  upon  the  promises,  to  the  neglect  of  the 
threatenings,  we  are  guilty  of  this  inconsistency, 
—  of  believing  that  God  may  keep  his  word  in  one 
case,  and  not  in  the  other !  And  is  this  the  charge 
against  us?  For  the  honor  of  our  common  sagaci- 
ty, we  beseech  our  brethren  not  to  bring  it  again. 
Do  not  think  us  quite  so  far  gone  !  We  are  not  so 
blind  to  our  own  interests  as  this.  If  God  has 
threatened,  verily,  we  believe  he  will  execute  it  to 
the  uttermost.  And  why  should  we  wish  to  believe 
otherwise,  and  run  the  risk  of  the  fulfilment  of  his 
word,  perhaps  tremendously.,  wpon  our  presumptu- 
ous heads?  Besides,  if  God  may  not  l>e  expected 
to  execute  his  threatening*,  what  better  security 
have  we  that  he  will  fulfil  his  promises  ?  We 
beseech  you,  in  all  earnestness,  never  to  impute 
this  weakness  to  us  again. 

But  it  is  said  that  we  neglect  the  threatenings, — 
neglect  the  study  of  them  ;  that  we  love  to  dwell 
upon  the  promises,  but  cannot  bear  to  contemplate 
the  threatenings.  In  reply,  the  objection  must 
mean  either  one  thing  or  the  other,  —  either  that 
we  disbelieve  what  appears  to  us  the  plain  threat- 
enings of  endless  wrath,  or  that  we  believe  them, 
but  hate  to  dwell  upon  them.  The  first  would 
constitute  us  infidels,  which  we  have  shown  we 
are  not ;  the  second  would  constitute  us  fools. 
Now,  we  do  profess  to  have  good  common  sense. 
And  if  so,  why  do  we  wish  to  run  the  tremendous 


184         UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

risk  of  hoping   God  may  not  prove  true  to  his 
word  ? 

In  reply  to  the  charge  that  we  neglect  to  study 
the  threatenings  of  God's  word,  we  hope  we  may 
be  excused  if  we  indulge  in  a  little  egotism.  We 
suppose  that  it  is  from  this  ground  that  the  charge 
comes,  of  a  one-sided  view  of  the  subject.  Now 
we  do  believe  that  there  is  no  sect  in  Christendom 
who  has  made  the  study  of  God's  threatenings  so 
distinct  and  thorough  a  work  as  these  same  Uni- 
versalists.  Start  not,  hearer,  for  it  is  a  truth.  We 
have  been  compelled  to  this,  from  the  very  opposi- 
tion we  have  had  to  encounter  from  scriptural  as 
well  as  anti-scriptural  opponents.  We  have  been 
assailed  with  passages  of  Scripture,  times  without 
number,  which  has  only  had  the  effect  to  turn  our 
attention,  in  a  special  manner,  to  the  careful  and 
labored  consideration  of  them ;  and  we  think  that, 
in  this  matter,  we  stand  equipped  .and  ready  to 
wield  the  sword  of  the  Spirit  in  ,  a  contest.  We 
abhor  boasting;  but  the  objection  calls  for  a  candid 
statement  of  facts.  So  careful  have  we  been  in 
the  consideration  of  those  passages  which  speak  of 
punishment,  and  especially  those  usually  applied  to 
a  future  state  of ,  existence,  that  a  complaint  is  fre- 
quently entered  against  us  in  a  scornful  way,  that 
w£  are  always  harping  upon  this  character  of 
texts.  Nay,  it  is  said  of  our  preaching,  in  taunt- 
ing simplicity,  that  we  have  "  too  much  Scripture ! " 
Thank  God  that  it  is  so !  that  he  has  put  into  our 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM.          185 

hands  a  faithful  record  of  his  truth,  and  it  is  ours 
to  read  it  understandingly,  and  rejoice  in  the  tilings 
which  It  opens  to  us.  May  we  always  have  a 
"  Thus  saith  the  Lord"  for  every  point  of  doctrine 
we  advance,  and  we'll  give  up  the  creeds  and 
catechisms,  and  count  them  blind  leaders  of  the 
blind.  If  men  had  ahvays  confined  themselves  to 
holy  writ,  —  if  they  had  not  taken  doctrine  upon 
authority  of  tradition,  and  naked,  unsupported  as- 
sertion of  ministers  and  others,  —  the  world  would 
have  been  better  off,  wiser  and  sounder  in  the 
faith,  and  more  united  in  the  things  pertaining  to 
their  peace.  We  glory  in  the  charge  of  being 
*'  too  scriptural,"  A  Christian,  especially  in  this 
age  of  error  and  delusion,  cannot  be  too  scriptural, 
He  ought  to  have  line  upon  line,  and  precept  upon 
precept,  —  here  a  little,  and  there  a  little,  of  God's 
word ;  and,  in  the  language  of  the  learned  Bishop 
Horsley,  "  he  will  not  be  liable  to  be  misled, 
either  by  the  refined  arguments  or  the  false  asser- 
tions of  those  who  would  engraft  their  own  opin- 
ions on  the  oracles  of  God,"  Then,  "  the  whole 
compass  of  abstruse  philosophy  and  recondite  his- 
tory shall  furnish  no  argument  with  which  the 
perverse  will  of  man  shall  be  able  to  shake  this 
LEARNED  Christian's  faith." 

We  repeat,  we  have  been  compelled  to  a  careful 
study  of  the  threatenings,  from  the  very  opposition 
which,  from  this  quarter,  we  have  been  called  to 
encounter.  We  have  given  them  our  particular 


186         UNIVERSAL1SM    AGAINST    PARTIAL1SM. 

and  candid  attention.  We  have  had  no  wish  to  be 
deceived  ourselves,  nor  to  be  the  instruments  of 
deception  unto  others.  We  have  not'  taken  a  one- 
sided, but  a  broad-sided  view  of  the  matter ;  and 
we  think  that  from  this  charge  we  may  very  hon- 
estly and  very  fairly  plead  not  guilty.  We  do, 
indeed,  dwell  upon  the  promises ;  these,  to  us,  are 
the  sheet  anchors  of  our  faith.  We  cannot  give 
them  up ;  they  are  exceeding  great  and  precious 
promises ;  and  it  is  a  happy  consideration  that  the 
law  is  not  against  them.  God  stand  by  us  with  his 
promises,  and  God  enable  us  to  know  his  threaten- 
in  gs ;  and  we'll  yet  trust  the  issue  with  him,  and 
rejoice  in  full,  broad,  glorious,  gospel  Universal- 
ism  ! 

V,  This  doctrine  is  also  objected  to  as  involving 
an  absolute  denial  of  the  justice  of  Jehovah.  In 
noticing  this  objection  here,  we  shall  endeavor  to 
be  brief,  because  the  same  subject,  in  previous 
lectures,  has  been  called  up  and  discussed.  In 
the  first  place,  Universalism  teaches  that  "  every 
transgression  shall  receive  a  just  recompense  of 
reward."  But,  as  the  views  of  divine  justice  are 
different,  it  is  proper  to  ask,  in  the  next  place, 
what  there  is  in  cleansing  a  fellow-being  from  his 
sins  that  is  unjust.  Now  this  individual  example 
will  illustrate  the  whole  spirit  of  Universalism ;  for 
it  teaches  that  every  sinner  in  the  universe  shall, 
after  receiving  an  adequate  punishment  for  his 
transgressions,  be  cleansed  from  all  iniquity,  and 


UN  I  VERBALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.          187 

be  made  holy  by  the  blood  of  the  Lamb.  We 
press  the  question,  What  is  there  in  destroying  sin, 
in  turning  men  from  guilt  to  innocence,  from  cor- 
ruption to  purity,  that  is  unjust  ?  Would  it  not  be 
rather  unjust  to  continue  them  in  guilt  and  pollution 
when  they  might  be  cleansed  and  purified,  and 
advanced  in  excellence  and  glory  ?  It  appears  to 
us  that,  if  there  is  injustice  any  where,  it  is  in  put- 
ting a  moral  being  into  a  state  where  he  is  com- 
pelled to  sin,  and  which  makes  obedience  and 
reformation  impossible.  Doubtless  God  will  con- 
sult his  glory,  which,  I  suppose,  must  harmonize 
with  his  justice,  in  the  final  issues  of  his  govern- 
ment. Now  it  is  written,  in  the  third  chapter  of 
Romans,  "  All  have  sinned,  and  come  short  of  the 
glory  of  God."  The  question  we  have  to  ask  is,  if 
rneri  in  this  world  come  so  far  short  of  the  glory 
of  God  by  sinning  against  him,  can  they  ever 
QC/8*  come  up  to  it  by  being  placed  in  a  state  where 
they  will  be  compelled  to  sin,  and  blaspheme  him 
forever  ?  Answer  this,  ye  who  talk  of  damning 
moral  beings  to  the  glory  of  God.  Now,  if  the 
justice  of  God  is  consistent  with  his  glory,  the  ques- 
tion is  settled  :  universal  salvation  from  sin  and 
suffering  does  not  deny,  but  is  essential  to,  the 
justice  of  the  almighty  Being. 

But  it  is  said  that  justice  demands  the  endless 
condemnation  of  the  sinner.  I  reply,  this  objection 
comes  too  late.  It  has  already  been  proved  that 
justice  demands  no  punishment  which  is  incon- 


188         UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PART1ALISM, 

sistent  with  the  highest  good  and  glory  of  the 
universe. 

Again,  is  there  any  mercy  in  the  infliction  of 
endless  punishment  ?  All  must  answer,  no.  Now 
it  is  written,  in  the  sixty-second  Psalm,  "  Also  unto 
thee,  O  Lord,  belongeth  mercy  ;  for  thou  renderest 
to  every  man  according  to  his  work."  Here  it  is 
assigned  as  a  reason  why  God  is  merciful,  because 
he  executeth  justice,  or  rendereth  to  every  man 
according  to  his  work.  Now,  inasmuch  as  it  is  no 
reason  why  God  is  merciful,  because  he  executeth 
unmerciful,  endless  torment,  the  execution  of  such 
a  punishment  can  furnish  no  reason  ivhy  he  is  just, 
but  a  contrary  one.  The  doctrine  of  universal 
salvation,  then,  does  not  involve  a  denial,  but  is  one 
of  the  strongest  affirmatives,  of  the  justice  of  the 
Almighty. 

Again,  it  was  clearly  proved  in  our  first  lecture 
that  sin  is  a  finite  evil.  To  that  lecture  I  again 
refer.  Consequently,  it  is  not  universal  salvation, 
but  endless  punishment,  (one  of  the  infinities,) 
which  denies  the  justice  of  God. 

Again,  justice  and  mercy  are  not  opposed  to  each 
other.  They  both  harmonize,  else  we  rob  God  of 
his  perfection.  Consequently,  if  mercy  desires  the 
reformation  of  an  offender,  so  does  justice,  else  it 
is  outraged  and  converted  to  revenge.  It  is  not 
our  doctrine,  therefore,  but  the  contrary  one,  which 
denies  the  justice  of  God. 

Once  more :  if  it  be  possible,  in  all  the  annals  of 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.          189 

history,  and  tyrants  wading  through  seas  of  blood, 
to  find  a  case  of  injustice,  that  is  injustice  which 
demands  endless  and  unutterable  torment  for  the 
sins  of  seventy  years.  It  is  not  only  injustice,  but 
injustice  beyond  all  conception,  measure,  and 
bound.  To  the  other  arguments  in  these  lectures 
I  refer,  for  a  further  examination  and  conclusion  of 
the  subject. 

VL  Another  objection  against  this  doctrine  is5 
that  it  is  the  result  of  an  unprincipled  perversion 
of  the  Scriptures.  A  word  to  the  wise  is  sufficient. 
In  the  first  place,  I  refer  to  my  fourth  lecture  on 
this  subject.  In  the  next  place,  I  ask  if,  in  this 
accusation,  it  be  meant  to  include  the  charge  of 
manufacturing  Scripture.  We  confess  we  have  no 
disposition  to  be  irksome ;  but  we  ask  the  congre- 
gation if  they  will  turn  to  their  Bibles,  to  the  chap- 
ters and  verses  of  the  following  passages :  "  No 
self-murderer  shall  have  eternal  life.  If  ye  die  in 
your  sins,  where  God  and  Christ  are,  ye  can  never 
come.  As  the  tree  falls,  so  it  lieth ;  as  death 
leaves  us,  so  judgment  will  find  us.  God,  out  of 
Christ,  is  a  consuming  fire*  The  wages  of  sin  is 
eternal  death.  As  it  is  appointed  unto  all  men 
once  to  die,  and  after  this  the  judgment."  To 
these  passages  we  might  add  the  phrases,  "  End- 
less wo,  endless  misery,"  &c.  If  the  hearer  will 
turn  to  his  Bible,  and  to  the  chapters  and  verses  of 
these  respective  Scriptures,  we  shall  then  feel  in  a 
livelier  mood  to  talk  to  him  about  perversion,  &c. 
17 


190         UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM, 

We  declare  we  had  father  have  the  charge  of  & 
perverter  than  a  manufacturer  of  Scripture.  We 
repeat  the  caution,  that  those  who  live  in  glass 
houses  should  not  throw  stones.  Among  all  the 
charges  that  have  ever  been  brought  against  us, 
we  do  not  recollect  of  ever  having  to  encounter  the 
heavy  one  alluded  to.  Other  people  have  done  this 
work  for  us.  We  have*  had  Universalist  Bibles,  and 
sermons,  and  prayers,  and  other  matters  furnished 
for  us,  wherein  Scripture  has  been  put  in  a  form 
supposed  more  suitable  for  us,  but  we  do  not  know 
that  we  have  ever  been  accused  of  doing  these 
things  ourselves.  We  have  always  deemed  the 
Bible  in  a  right  shape  now ;  at  least,  we  have  al- 
ways made  use  of  it  as  it  is ;  and  the  fruits  of  our 
conquest  prove  abundantly  that  it  need  not  be  sub- 
tracted from,,  or  added  to,  to  give  us,  more  effectu- 
ally than  we  now  have  it,  the  vantage  ground 
against  crur  enemies. 

To- notice  seriously  the  charge  of  unprincipled 
perversion  would^  as  in  a  former  case,  be  to  no- 
tice a  charge  like  the  following :  that  we  have 
framed  a  system  in  our  minds  to  suit  our  own 
fancy,  or  our  conceptions  of  the  divine  government ; 
and  have  then,  despite  of  the  plain  reading  of  the 
word,  run  the  tremendous  risk  ©f  infinite  conse- 
quences. We  repeat,  we  are  not  so  blind  to  our 
own  interests  as  this.  Men-  do  not  generally 
place  themselves  and  all  that  appertains  to  them  in 
such  amazing  jeopardy.- 


TTNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM-          191 

But  it  iaay  be  said  we  do  it  ignarantly.  Then 
the  congregation  must  decide-  I  refer  to  my  fourth 
lecture,  wherein  the  Scriptures  were  largely  and 
liberally  appealed  to ;  and  we  urge  the  more  atten- 
tive examination  of  our  views  of  Scripture,  re- 
specting which,  among  .our  accusers,  there  exists 
such  an  unpardonable  ignorance.  It  is  true^  the 
majority  of  our  adversaries  know  not  wluit  we  do 
with  certain  important  portions  of  the  Bible*.  They 
are  ignorant  of  but  one  side  of  a  view  which  has 
been  taken  of  these  passages,  and,  in  that  igno- 
rance, they  express  the  greatest  astonishment  that 
any  one  could  think  differently  from  what  to  them 
appears  the  only  true  teaching  of  the  word.  These 
things  we  know  from  long  experience ;  and  we 
have  no  hesitancy  in  speaking..  They  are,  for  the 
most  part,  utterly  ignorant  of  what  they  call  per- 
version !  We  advise  them  to  examine  our  views 
of  these  matters.  Be  more  noble  than  those  in 
Thessalonica,  and  search  the  Scriptures  daily 
whether  these  things  are  so.  Prove  all  things; 
hold  fast  that  which  seemeth  to  thee  good.  Look 
upon  ministers  as  fallible  men.  Consider  how  the 
popes  erred,  who  claimed  infallibility.  Consider 
the  changes  in  your  own  ranks  ;  how  reputed  ortho- 
doxy now  is  amazingly  different  from  what  it  was 
a  few  years  since ;  how,  if  preached  now  as  it  was 
then,  it  would  meet  with  extermination  and  repulse. 
Add  to  all  this  the  consideration  that,  long  ago, 
men  of  learning  and  eminence,  of  the  Orthodox 


192         UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

party,  have  given  almost  every  passage  in  the 
Bible  which  speaks  of  punishment  an  application 
to  the  present  life.  These  men  were  not  preju- 
diced against  the  doctrine  we  oppose.  Their 
prejudices  were  all  in  favor  of  a  popular  and  com- 
mon interpretation,  and  their  own  doctrine  would 
have  been  sustained  and  interested  by  it ;  but  con- 
science and  honesty,  united  with  their  learning, 
compelled  them  to  explain  these  Scriptures  as 
Universalists  ever  have  explained  them.  Will  you 
bring  the  charge  of  wilful  or  ignorant  perversion 
against  them  ?  Undoubtedly  some  would  contend 
for  the  latter;  but  every  man  must  be  his  own 
judge ;  and,  if  honestly  in  error,  no  doubt  God  will 
approve  the  sincerity  of  his  heart.  I  leave  this 
charge  of  perversion,  to  notice  the  next  in  order, 
which  is, 

VII.  That  Universalism  is  particularly  pleasing 
to  the  carnal  mind.  In  reply  to  this  frequently  put 
and  scornful  objection,  let  us  first  ask  if  those  who 
bring  it  really  know  what  they  assert.  We  are 
confident  they  do  not,  for  it  would  involve  them  in 
many  mortifying  inconsistencies ;  and  we  have 
more  charity  for  them,  therefore,  than  to  believe 
they  really  know  what  this  objection  conveys. 
For  the  objection  is  in  reality  an  assertion  from  a 
Christian's  mouth,  that  the  desires  of  God,  of  Christ, 
of  holy  angels,  of  the  saints  in  glory  and  the  saints 
on  earth,  AND  the  desires  of  the  carnal  mind,  are 
in  perfect  unison  with  one  another !  —  a  proposition 


UNI  VERSA  LiSM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM.          193 

too  shocking,  almost,  to  contemplate.  For  is  it  not 
true,  is  it  not  the  candid  and  ready  confession  of 
the  majority  of  believers  in  endless  punishment, 
that  God  desires,  and  wills,  and  it  would  be  his 
pleasure  to  effect,  the  salvation  of  the  world  ? 
Certainly,  this  is  contended  for.  To  this  end  we 
frequently  hear  ministers  of  the  gospel  warn  their 
impenitent  hearers  of  the  dangers  of  transgression, 
at  the  same  time  reminding  them,  for  their  encour- 
agement, that  God  is  not  willing  that  any  should 
perish,  but  that  all  should  come  to  repentance. 
And,  to  strengthen  their  arguments,  they  will  fre- 
quently quote  from  Ezekiel,  "  Have  I  any  pleasure 
at  all  that  the  wicked  should  die  ?  saith  tho  Lord 
God ;  and  not  that  he  should  return  from  his  ways 
and  live  ?  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  him 
that  dieth ;  wherefore  turri  yourselves,  and  live  ye." 
That  it  is  indeed  the  pleasure  of  God  that  all  might 
be  saved,  might  be  established  from  the  Scriptures ; 
but  it  is  frankly  admitted  by  our  opponents,  and 
we  are  therefore  saved  the  trouble.  And,  of 
course,  if  it  is  the  pleasure  of  God,  it  is  also  of 
Christ,  if  these  two  are  one  in  desire.  Now,  that 
it  is  the  pleasure  of  the  holy  angels,  may  be  estab- 
lished from  the  following :  — -  When  the  birth  of  the 
Saviour  was  announced  to  the  shepherds  of  Bethle- 
hem, in  the  language,  "  Fear  not,  for,  behold,  I 
bring  you  good  tidings  of  great  joy,  which  shall  be 
unto  all  people"  suddenly  there  was  with  the  angel 
"  a  multitude  of  the  heavenly  host  praising  God," 
17* 


194         UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

and  adding  the  response,  "  Glory  to  God  in  the 
highest,"  &c.  It  was,  then,  emphatically  the 
pleasure  of  the  holy  angels  that  this  Saviour  might 
prove  successful.  So,  also,  is  it  the  pleasure  of 
the  saints  in  heaven.  For  we  read,  "  There  is 
more  joy  in  heaven  over  one  sinner  that  repenteth, 
than  over  ninety  and  nine  just  persons  that  need  no 
repentance."  So,  also,  is  it  the  pleasure  of  the 
saints  on  earth.  For  they  are  all  laboring,  and 
praying  fervently,  for  the  salvation  of  the  world. 
Now,  then,  the  conclusion  is  —  if  the  objection 
under  consideration  is  a  just  one  — that  the  desires 
and  pleasure  of  God,  of  Christ,  of  the  holy  angels, 
of  the  saints  in  heaven,  and  the  saints  on  earth,  are 
all  in  perfect  unison  and  agreement  with  the 
desires  and  pleasures  of  the  carnal  mind  !  The 
carnal  mind,  then,  is  something  very  different  from 
what  we  have  always  conceived  it  to  be  ;  or  else 
all  heaven  must  bear  the  impression  of  carnality. 
Is  there  a  Christian  who  ought  not  to  be  ashamed 
to  say  that  what  is  pleasing  to  the  carnal  mind  is 
also  pleasing  to  God  and  heaven  ? 

The  difficulty  lies  here.  Many  people  know 
not  what  they  oppose.  When  they  think  of  Uni- 
versalism,  they  think  of  something  inexpressibly 
odious.  They  have  but  one  confused  and  mortify- 
ing idea  of  it ;  that  is,  that  we  "  preach  all  men 
into  heaven,  good  and  bad  together."  Thus  endeth 
all  their  knowledge  of  the  system.  A  carnal  mind, 
to  be  sure,  might  dwell  on  such  a  prospect,  with  all 


UN1VERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.          195 

the  rapture  of  an  unregenerate  soul.  It  would  be 
worthy  of  the  contemplation  of  an  aspirant  for  the 
debauched  heaven  of  Mohammed.  But  this  is  not 
our  doctrine.  And  can  you  tell  me  if  there  is  any 
thing  pleasing  to  the  carnal  mind,  or  agreeable 
with  it,  in  the  prospect  of  unspotted  holiness  and 
spiritual  joy  ?  Is  there  any  thing  pleasing  to 
carnality  in  the  contemplation  of  carnality  de- 
stroyed ?  of  a  universal  washing  of  the  regeneration 
and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  If  there  is, 
then  it  is  a  worthy  pleasure  ;  and  carnality  itself  is 
not  total  in  the  man. 

Again,  in  order  to  answer  the  objection  effectual- 
ly, let  us  seek  a  knowledge  of  the  tendency  of 
carnal  mind.  "  The  carnal  mind,"  then,  the  Scrip- 
tures assure  us,  "  is  enmity  against  God."  Enmity 
against  God,  then,  against  his  government,  his  will, 
his  law,  is  the  characteristic  of  the  carnal  mind  ; 
"  For  it  is  not  subject  to  the  law  of  God,  neither 
indeed  can  be."  It  must  be  destroyed.  Now  it 
seems  perfectly  reasonable  to  suppose  that  what- 
ever is  in  accordance  with  his  government,  his  will 
and  law,  the  carnal  mind  must  be  particularly  op- 
posed to.  For  here  it  would  manifest  its  enmity, 
in  unrighteous  opposition  to  his  will  and  pleasure, 
Is  it,  then,  the  system  of  Universalism,  with  which 
the  carnal  mind  is  particularly  pleased  ?  This 
system  teaches  that  the  law  of  God,  which  is  all 
comprehended  in  love  to  God  and  man  universal, 
shall  eventually  be  all  fulfilled;  that  all  disobe- 


196         UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

dience  shall  be  done  away,  and  love  to  God  be 
universal.  But  the  carnal  mind  is  enmity  to  the 
law  of  God !  Evidently,  then,  it  cannot  be  par- 
ticularly pleased  with  the  system  of  Universalism, 
which  is  not  in  opposition  with  the  law,  but  de- 
pends, for  its  very  existence,  upon  the  law's  wide 
and  universal  fulfilment.  No ;  the  carnal  mind  is 
opposed,  is  at  enmity  with  this ;  and  we  may 
rest  assured,  that  a  system  so  in  entire  accordance 
with  the  government,  will,  pleasure,  and  law  of 
God,  would  never  be  pleasing  to  the  carnal  mind, 
which  is  at  utter  enmity  with  the  whole  of  it. 

But  what  would  the  carnal  mind  be  pleased 
with  ?  If  we  may  indulge  in  a  little  further  re- 
flection, guided  by  the  declared  characteristic  of 
the  carnal  mind,  that  it  is  enmity  against  God,  we 
may  say  that  it  would  be  pleased  with  any  thing 
that  was  in  opposition  with  the  will  arid  law  of 
God.  Now,  to  be  brief,  endless  damnation  is  ac- 
knowledged by  its  own  advocates  to  be  contrary  to 
the  will  and  pleasure  of  God.  Consequently,  end- 
less damnation  is  a  doctrine  of  the  carnal  mind  !  a 
doctrine  pleasing  to  devils  and  fiends,  incarnate  ; 
but  not  pleasing  to  God,  angels,  or  holy  men. 
Endless  damnation  is  contrary  to  the  law  of  God. 
For  the  law  of  God  require?  love,  and  love  univer- 
sal, for  its  obedience.  But  the  doctrine  in  question 
perpetuates  eternal  hatred  and  rebellion,  and 
makes  obedience  to  the  law  impossible.  Conse- 
quently, endless  damnation  is  at  enmity  with  the 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.          197 

law,  is  enmity  against  God,  and  is  therefore  a 
production  of  the  carnal  mind  !  These  things  are 
plain  ;  but  they  are  matters  of  plain  truth.  Those 
who  live  in  glass  houses  should  not  throw  stones. 

But  perhaps  it  will  be  said  that  what  is  meant 
by  Universalisrn  being  pleasing  to  the  carnal  mind 
is,  that  the  prospect  of  a  final  and  universal  deliver- 
ance from  punishment  is  a  thing  thus  pleasing  to 
carnality.  But  this  is  only  a  part  of  our  doctrine. 
Our  system  teaches  not  only  a  universal  de- 
liverance from  punishment,  after  every  sin  is 
blotted  out,  and  all  justice  executed,  but  also 
teaches  an  advancement  unto  unspotted  holiness 
and  purity.  The  whole  system  must  be  taken  in 
connection,  if  we  would  fairly  raise  an  objection 
against  it.  And  if  this  prospect  of  purity  is  pleas- 
ing to  the  carnal  mind,  I  say,  it  is  a  worthy  and 
honorable  kind  of  pleasure,  and  proves  that  car- 
nality itself  is  not  absolutely  total  in  the  man  ! 

VIII.  We  pass  t6  a  consideration  of  the  next 
objection.  It  is  the  paltry  idea  that  this  doctrine  is 
"too  good  to  be  true."  Truth,  then,  depends 
upon  badness,  or  upon  a  low  state  of  goodness. 
And  if  this  is  the  case,  then  we  know  of  no  doctrine 
that  would  hit  nearer  to  the  truth  than  that  of  end- 
less torments.  It  would  be  difficult  to  conceive  of 
one  worse  than  this.  We  believe  that,  if  there  is  a 
devil,  and  if  he  has  a  doctrine,  this  must  be  the 
one.  We  defy  any  man  to  invent  one  more  worthy 
of  the  devil.  The  only  way  to  make  it  perfect, 


198         UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

and  every  way  worthy  of  the  devil,  is  to  make 
damnation  universal. 

But  do,  I  beseech  you,  look  this  objection  in  the 
face.  Can  any  thing  be  too  good  to  emanate  from 
the  fountain  of  infinite  and  everlasting  goodness  ? 
Can  any  thing  be  too  good  for  the  Father  of  all 
mercies  ?  Ah  !  this  objection  is  the  exclamation 
of  those  who  "  trust "  not  "  in  the  mercy  of  God 
forever."  It  is  the  evidence  of  a  mind  filled  with 
despair  and  tormenting  doubts,  which  has  been 
shrouded  in  the  gloom  of  a  false  theology.  How 
many  are  there  who  have  long  contemplated  their 
Creator  as  one  terrible  in  power,  and  awful  in  the 
infliction  of  evil ;  who  have  lost  the  confidence  of 
children,  or,  what  is  worse,  perhaps  never  had  it, 
but,  from  their  youth,  have  looked  upward  to  the 
throne  of  an  august  Monarch,  or  a  ruling  Sove- 
reign, but  have  never  perceived  the  kind  and  ever- 
faithful  Father  !  Such  Christians,  such  creatures, 
I  pity  from  my  heart.  I  know  something  of 
their  bitterness,  for  I  have  drank  at  the  same 
fountain,  and  been  instructed  in  the  same  ways. 
Saurin  did  most  truly  exclaim,  "  I  find  in  the 
thought  a  mortal  poison,  diffusing  itself  into  every 
period  of  my  life,  making  society  tiresome,  nour- 
ishment insipid,  pleasure  disgustful,  and  life  itself  a 
cruel  bitter.  I  cease  to  wonder  that  the  fear  of 
hell  hath  made  some  melancholy,  and  others 
mad." 

Too  good  to  be  true  !     And  have   ye  lost  the 


tfNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.          199 

relish  for  goodness  ?  have  ye  fallen  in  love  with 
evil  ?  have  ye  forsaken  God,  the  fountain  of  living 
waters,  and  hewed  out  to  yourselves  cisterns, 
broken  cisterns,  that  can  hold  no  water  ?  Have  ye 
gone  after  other  gods  ?  Have  ye  bowed  down  the 
knee  to  the  image  of  Baal  ?  I  protest  against  the 
degrading  fear  that  can  tremble  to 'ascribe  goodness 
unto  God.  There  is  good  in  the  universe.  There 
is  good,  infinite  good,  in  the  plan  of  redemption  and 
salvation.  There  is  good  out  of  evil,  order  out  of 
confusion.  God  is  light,  and  in  him  is  no  darkness 
at  all.  God  is  love,  and  he  hateth  not  any  crea- 
ture he  has  made.  God  is  good,  and  his  goodness 
endureth  continually.  "  Let  us  abundantly  utter 
the  memory  of  his  great  goodness,  and  sing  of  his 
righteousness.  All  thy  works  shall  praise  thee,  O 
Lord,  a-nd  thy  saints  shall  bless  thee.  The  Lord  is 
good  to  all,  and  his  mercy  endureth  forever."  If 
our  doctrine  is  too  good  to  be  true,  we  rejoice,  not 
in  the  absurdity  of  the  accusation,  but  in  the 
character  of  a  grand  theology  which  called  it  forth. 
It  is  too  good  not  to  be  true.  Your  doctrine, 
friend,  let  me  tell  thee^  is  too  bad  to  be  true,  too 
bad  to  be  ascribed  to  God ;  and  may  he,  in  mercy, 
put  thee  in  a  better  way. 

IX.  This  system  is  said  to  be  built  upon  a  denial 
of  the  free  agency  of  man.  This  objection  may 
be  answered  very  briefly.  We  took  special  care, 
in  the  outset  of  this  series  of  lectures,  to  anticipate 
all  objections  fou»dedr  on,  or  growing  out  of,  the 


200         UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

free  agency  of  man.  We  showed,  clearly,  that 
we  were  freed  from  the  mazes  of  this  intricate 
question  ;  that  free  agency  and  endless  punishment 
were  not  necessarily  connected  ;  that  one  might  be 
true  without  the  other;  and  that  we,  therefore, 
passed  along  in  our  argument,  leaving  the  dear 
sentiment  of  free  moral  agency  in  an  undisturbed 
repose.  It  must  be  manifest  to  all,  that,  because 
man  is  a  free  agent,  he  is  not,  of  necessity,  exposed 
to  an  endless  curse.  The  penalty  of  the  law  may, 
in  perfect  consistency  therewith,  be  annihilation, 
or  limited  punishment  terminated  by  a  restoration 
to  holiness  and  happiness,  or  any  imaginary  evil 
which  God  may  be  pleased  to  inflict.  All  we  con- 
tend for  in  the  present  argument  is,  that  free 
agency  and  endless  punishment  are  no  more  neces- 
sarily connected  than  Calvin's  theology  with  the 
north  pole.  This  must  be  apparent  to  every  one. 
Now,  if  free  agency  and  endless  punishment  are 
not,  of  necessity,  connected,  how  does  universal 
salvation  involve  of  necessity,  a  denial  of  this 
agency?  It  does  not ;  and,  if  they  were  connected, 
it  even  then  would  not.  To  be  plain,  it  is  not  only 
contended  by  many  theologians  that  God,  in  the 
great  plan  of  his  economy  and  government,  de- 
termined unchangeably  that  man  should  be  a  free, 
moral  agent,  but  it  is  also  contended  that  he  must 
set  before  him  infinite  joy  and  endless  wo.  Nov/ 
we  may,  for  the  argument,  admit  the  truth  of  these 
propositions.  And  how  far  will  the  argument 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST 

carry  us  ?     May  not   free  agent^ 
saved  ?     Can  they  not   be   saved  i 
period  of  time,  in  the  whole  outstretching 
nity,  when  a  free  agent  might  not  turn  and  live"?- — 
The  argument,  you  see,  is  resolved  into  a  mere 
supposition   that  they  may  not  be  saved.      And 
now,  against  that,  we  will  set  the  supposition  that 
they  may ! 

But  we  prefer  to  rest  the  argument  on  scriptural 
ground.  In  Psalm  ex.  3  it  is  written,  "  Thy  peo-  * 
pie  shall  be  willing  in  the  day  of  thy  power." 
Here  is  a  reference  to  the  gospel  day.  The  day 
of  God's  power  is  the  day  of  Christ's  power.  And 
it  is  declared  that  .the  people  shall  be  willing, — 
shall  come  with  a  willing  mind  and  heart,  with  a 
readiness  to  receive  the  blessing,  however  perverse 
and  opposed  they  may  have  been.  And  if  one 
may,  all  may ;  and  the  will  of  man  may  be  in 
harmony  with  his  salvation.  Nothing  is  more  tri- 
fling, therefore,  than  to  say  that  universal  salvation 
is  built  upon  a  denial  of  the  free  agency  of  man. 
If  he  is  free,  it  is  not  impossible  that  he  may  be 
saved ;  whereas  it  would  be  if  he  was  not. 

X.  The  tenth  and  last  objection  we  shall  notice 
is,  that  this  doctrine  will  do  very  well  to  live  by, 
but  will  not  do  to  die  by.  This  is  frequently  the 
last  exclamation,  given  with  a  sigh,  when  argument 
fails  and  controversy  ends.  It  will  do  to  live  by, 
but  will  not  do  to  die  by.  This  is  an  objection  of 
some  weight ;  for  if  the  doctrine  will  not  support 
18 


202         ITNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

us  in  the  dying  hour,  it  cannot  be  the  all-sustaining 
truth  of  God.  In  answer  to  it,  we  would  thank  the 
objector,  in  the  first  place,  for  the  acknowledgment 
that  it  does  so  well  to  live  by.  It  is  a  comforting, 
salutary,  holy  doctrine.  It  is  all-sufficient  to 
live  by. 

"  But  it  will  not  do  to  die  by."  In  order$  now, 
to  ascertain  its  virtue  here,  and  its  comparative 
worth  in  reference  to  its  opposite,  we  must  imagine 
ourselves  stretched  upon  the  dying  couch.  Having 
gone  through  a  life,  perhaps,  of  much  turmoil  and 
trouble,  we  have  approached  the  closing  scene. 
Our  friends,  our  family  —  if  we  have  any  —  are 
around  us.  We  bid  them  good-ly  with  a  faith  all 
holy  in  the  universal  victory  of  Christ,  or  else  all 
trembling  with  horrid  apprehensions  of  ever-accu- 
mulating misery.  Look  on  this  picture,  and  on 
that;  Here  is  a  faithful  believer  in  a  world's  sal- 
vation rejoicing  with  his  family  and  friends  in  the 
hour  of  dissolving  nature,  in  the  prospect  of  death 
vanquished,  sin  finished,  and  God  all  in  all ;  and 
his  eye  kindles  while  the  spirit  flutters  from  its 
shattered  tenement,  and  death  has  no  power  over 
him.  He  leaves  them  for  a  little  while,  when  they 
shall  meet  again  in  realms  of  universal  blessedness, 
when  there  shall  be  no  more  death,  neither  sorrow 
nor  crying,  neither  shall  there  be  any  more  pain ; 
for  the  former  things  will  have  passed  away.  He 
commits  his  family  to  the  care  of  the  universal  Fa- 
ther,says/arez0eZZ,and  life's  feverish  dream  is  o'er.- 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.         203 

Here  is  another,  —  a  believer  in  another  doc- 
trine. He  sees  a  heaven,  but  he  may  not  attain  to 
it ;  it  is  but  a  partial  heaven :  and  even  if  he 
should,  he  sees  a  hell,  glowing  and  yawning,  may 
be,  for  some  of  that  precious  group  around  him. 
O,  that  double  death !  that  poison  of  death's  peace ! 
that  trembling  apprehension  for  the  fate  of  some 
one  dearer  than  life  !  Farewell !  I  may  meet  thee 
in  heaven ;  thou  mayest  perish  from  me  forever ! 
—  I  forbear.  This  is  no  imaginary  picture.  If 
there  is  any  doctrine  fitted  to  die  by,  it  is  that 
which  whispers,  peace,  be  still. 

But  it  is  said  this  doctrine  will  not  abide  by  us 
in  the  hour  of  death.  It  is  now  too  late  to  bring 
this  assertion.  Thousands  of  death-beds  have  tes- 
tified its  falsity.  Many  have  been  the  triumphs, 
and  glorious  the  victories,  over  death,  which  we 
have  witnessed,  which  our  eyes  have  seen,  and  our 
ears  have  heard.  Scarcely  a  week  passes  but 
brings  us  some  new  tidings  of  the  victories  of  this 
faith,  this  hope.  It  is  the  only  faith  that  can 
satisfy,  that  can  give  fulness  of  joy,  in  death's 
approaching  hour.  No  doubt,  many  die  happy  in 
the  contrary  faith ;  but,  if  they  have  hearts,  if  they 
have  sympathies,  there  must  be,  when  looking  out 
even  upon  the  .little  world  of  their  own  interests, 
an  aching  void  which  nothing  else  can  fill.  God 
grant  that,  when  my  head  is  pillowed  on  the  bed 
of  death,  I  may  have  this  faith,  this  joy,  this  tri- 
umph! 


204         UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

But  it  is  said  that  many  renounce  it  on  their 
death-beds.  This  charge  is  unsupported.  At- 
tempts are  frequently  made,  by  designing  individu- 
als, to  shake  the  faith  in  that  affecting  hour ;  but 
they  have  generally  been  repulsed,  and  compelled 
to  be  the  spectators  of  a  triumphant  exit.  We 
think  we  may  be  safe  in  stating  that  no  intelligent 
believer  in  the  great  salvation,  who  has  been  left 
to  the  full  exercise  of  his  reasoning  faculties,  whose 
mind  has  not  been  strangely  prostrate  with  his 
body,  has  renounced  his  faith  —  worth  worlds  to 
him  —  in  death's  approaching  hour. 

Shall  we  state  a  contrary  truth  ?  It  is,  then, 
prominently  true,  that  many,  who,  in  health  and 
prosperity,  have  expected  to  gain  heaven  by  their 
works,  their  piety  and  faith,  have,  when  brought  to 
the  last  closing  scene,  expressed  their  only  hope  in 
the  mercy  of  God.  They  have  then  been  made  to 
feel  the  frailty  of  all  things  else,  and  they  have 
rejoiced  alone  in  the  goodness  of  the  Creator. 
Yea,  more  than  this :  instances  are  on  record, 
where  those  who  have,  in  activity  and  health, 
assented  to  the  doctrine  of  endless  and  unutterable 
torments,  have,  on  their  death-beds,  when  tottering, 
as  it  were,  on  the  verge  of  the  grave,  exchanged  a 
system  so  gloomy,  and  revolting,  and  dishonorable 
to  God,  for  a  strong,  and  rejoicing,  and  triumphant 
faith  in  the  final  blessedness  of  the  congregated 
universe.  I  am  happy  to  state  the  occurrence  of  a 
case  of  this  kind,  which  happened  but  a  few  weeks 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.         205 

since.  It  showed  the  power  of  a  wide  and  univer- 
sal faith  to  sustain  the  spirit  when  sinking  under 
death.  It  was  another  and  a  glorious  refutation  of 
the  charge  that  the  system  we  advocate  will  not 
stand  by  us  in  the  last  sad  scene.  It  has  not  only 
stood  by,  but,  blessed  be  God,  it  has  come  to  sus- 
tain the  soul  in  death,  when,  through  a  whole  life, 
the  subjects  have  been  left  to  grope  in  the  darkness 
of  an  inglorious  faith.  "  Thanks  be  to  God,  which 
giveth  us  the  victory,  through  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ." 

And  now,  my  brethren,  I  bring  this  subject  to  a 
close.  I  think  myself  happy,  because  I  have  an- 
swered for  myself  this  night,  before  thee,  touching 
many  of  the  things  whereof  we  are  accused.  But 
one  other  charge  remains ;  that  is,  the  heavy 
charge  qf  licentiousness,  which  flies  upon  the 
wings  of  the  wind.  From  its  importance  and 
prominency,  and  the  zeal  with  which  it  is  hurled 
as  an  offensive  weapon  against  the  faitfi  in  God's 
unbounded  love,  we  have  reserved  it  for  the  last 
and  closing  lecture  of  the  series.  From  the  labors 
of  the  present  one,  we  hesitate  not  to  say  that  the 
charges  are  false  which  are  alleged  against  us ; 
and,  in  the  language  of  an  apostle  on  a  like  occa- 
sion, "  neither  can  they  prove  the  things  whereof 
they  now  accuse  us." 


18* 


LECTURE    VI. 

COMPARATIVE    ILLUSTRATION    OF    THE    MORAL    TEN- 
DENCY   OF    THE    SYSTEM    OF   UNIVERSAL    GRACE. 

If  the  truth  of  God  hath  more  abounded  through  my  lie 
unto  his  glory,  why  yet  am  I  also  judged  as  a  sinner  1  And 
not  rather,  (as  we  be  slanderously  reported,  and  as  some 
affirm  that  we  say,)  Let  us  do  evil,  that  good  may  come'? 

Romans  iii.  7,  8. 

IT  is  the  object  of  this  discourse  to  refute  the 
slanderous  accusation  of  licentiousness,  which  was 
omitted  in  the  consideration  of  the  charges  brought 
forward  in  our  last  lecture,  and  reserved  for  a 
particular  and  separate  discussion.  We  shall  not 
only  act  the  part  of  the  defensive,  but,  by  a  com- 
parison of  tbe  two  opposite  theories,  illustrate  the 
preference  of  one  over  the  other. 

This  charge,  we  have  said,  flies  upon  the  wings 
of  the  wind.  It  is  the  first  and  the  last,  the  alpha 
and  omega,  with  the  generality  of  those  who 
would  oppose  and  destroy  what  it  has  been  the 
object  of  these  lectures  to  establish.  It  will  fre- 
quently survive  the  serious  charge,  with  the  con- 
sideration of  which  we  closed  our  former  lecture ; 
and,  while  many  triumphant  deaths  have  extorted 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.         207 

the  acknowledgment  of  the  frailty  and  falsity  of 
that,  the  many  well-ordered  lives  will  not  command 
a  like  honorable  acknowledgment  for  this  :  but  the 
virtue  of  the  heart,  instead  of  being  placed  to  the 
homage  of  the  faith  that  nourished  it,  will  be  very 
circumspectly  looked  upon  as  a  most  fortunate 
preservation  from  the  errors  of  the  head ;  while, 
at  the  same  time,  it  is  very  generously  and  compli- 
mentally  handed  over  to  the  imperceptible  influ- 
ence of  other  sentiments,  among  which,  it  is  said, 
the  man  had  been  so  lucky  as  to  breathe  and  live  ! 
But  our  motto  is,  "  Honor  to  whom  honor  is  due. 
A  good  tree  cannot  bring  forth  evil  fruit ;  neither 
can  a  corrupt  tree  bring  forth  good  fruit.  Either 
make  the  tree  good,  and  his  fruit  good,  or  else 
make  the  tree  corrupt,  and  his  fruit  corrupt ;  for 
the  tree  is  known  by  its  fruit."  We  must  beg  to 
be  excused  from  adopting  a  judgment  so  very 
impartial ;  for  this  is  not  our  method  of  appropri- 
ating either  honors  or  virtue. 

To  approach  the  subject,  let  us  briefly  descant 
upon  the  meaning  of  the  text.  In  the  chapter 
immediately  preceding  the  one  from  which  our 
text  is  selected,  the  apostle  sets  forth  in  a  strong 
light  the  presumed  self-sufficiency  and  wickedness 
of  the  Jewish  people.  Then,  in  the  next  chapter, 
notwithstanding  all  their  wickedness  and  unbelief, 
the  apostle  supposes  a  Jew  to  ask — for  the  subject 
is  treated  in  the  form  of  dialogue  — "  What  if  some 
did  not  believe  ?  Shall  their  unbelief  make  the 


208         UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

faith  [or  faithfulness]  of  God  without  effect  ? " 
That  is,  —  as  Dr.  Clarke  very  judiciously  remarks, 
-T-"  If  some  of  the  Jewish  nation  have  abused  their 
privileges,  and  acted  contrary  to  their  obligations, 
shall  their  wickedness  annul  the  PROMISE  which 
God  made  to  Abraham,  that  he  would,  by  an  ever- 
lasting (or  age  lasting)  covenant,  be  a  God  to  him 
and  to  his  seed  after  him  ?  Shall  God,  therefore, 
by  stripping  the  Jews  of  their  peculiar  honor,  as 
you  intimate  he  will,  falsify  his  promise  to  the 
nation,  because  some  of  the  Jews  are  bad  men  ?  " 
To  all  which  the  apostle  replies,  "  God  forbid  :  yea, 
let  God  be  true,  and  every  man  a  liar." 

Now,  in  contemplation  of  this  striking  fact,  that 
no  unbelief  or  unrighteousness  in  man  could  in 
the  least  degree  annul  or  render  of  none  effect 
the  faithful  promise  of  God,  the  Jew  very  honestly 
rejoins,  "  But  if  our  unrighteousness  commend  the 
righteousness  of  God,  what  shall  we  say  ?  Is  God 
unrighteous  who  taketh  vengeance  ? "  He  sup- 
posed that  if  no  possible  wickedness  could  at  all 
weaken  the  promise  of  God  to  them,  their  unrighte- 
ousness might  serve  to  commend  or  illustrate  his 
great  mercy  in  keeping  and  fulfilling  that  promise 
which  he  made  to  their  fathers,  —  that  "  the  more 
wicked  they  became,  the  more  God's  faithfulness 
to  his  ancient  promise  is  to  be  admired."  And  in 
this  he  was  indeed  correct ;  but  the  conclusion  he 
came  to  from  this  fact  was  entirely  erroneous, 
Fpr,  continued  he,  this  being  the  case,  is  not  Gpd 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.         209 

unjust  in  taking  vengeance  ?  Why  should  we  be 
punished  for  what  serves  so  to  enhance  God's 
faithfulness  and  glory  ?  Admitting  this,  is  not 
God  unjust  in  punishing  ?  But  what  saith  the 
apostle  ?  "  God  forbid  ;  for  then  how  shall  God 
judge  the  world  ?  "  Although  the  wickedness  and 
unbelief  of  men  may  thus  ultimately  redound  to 
the  glory  of  God,  by  making  his  faithfulness  and 
mercy  more  manifest,  yet,  if  he  should  not  punish 
or  take  vengeance  on  the  sinner,  how  could  God 
judge  the  world  ?  All  distinction  between  right 
and  wrong  would  be  at  once  confounded. 

We  are  now  in  a  fairer  way  to  understand  the 
text.  The  apostle  there,  after  his  plain  manner  of 
speaking,  calls  the  unbelief  and  unrighteousness  of 
the  Jews  a  lie.  "  If  the  truth  of  God  hath  more 
abounded  through  my  lie  unto  his  glory,  why  yet 
am  I  also  judged  as  a  sinner?  And  not  rather, 
(as  we  be  slanderously  reported,  and  as  some 
affirm  that  we  say,)  L»t  us  do  evil  that  good  may 
come  ?  "  This  was  the  conclusion  he  came  to.  If 
the  truth  of  God,  or  the  faithfulness  of  God,  in 
keeping  his  promise  to  our  fathers  is,  through  our 
lie,  or  unfaithfulness,  made  far  more  glorious  than 
it  otherwise  would  have  been,  why,  then,  should 
we  be  judged  as  sinners  ?  Why  should  we  be 
blamed  and  punished  as  sinners  for  that  which 
would  redound  so  much  to  the  glory  of  God  ? 
And  not  rather,  (as  we  be  slanderously  reported, 


210        UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

and  as  some  jaffirm  that  we  say,)  Let  us  do  evil 
that  gopd  may  come  ?  "  Seeing  this  ground  is 
assumed,  why  not  in  all  cases  do  wickedly,  since 
God,  by  freely  pardoning,  can  so  glorify  bis  own 
grace,'" 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  precise  idea  of  the  text. 
But  this  was  a  most  impious  sentiment,  and  had 
been  unjustly  laid  to  the  charge  of  the  apostles, 
who  taught  the  doctrine  of  a  free  salvation  without 
the  merit  of  good  works.  The  doctrine  of  the 
apostle  was,  "  Where  sin  abounded,  grace  did 
much  more  abound,"  or  would  be  much  more 
manifest.  This  doctrine  of  free  grace  abounding 
over  all  sin  and  destroying  it,  is  what  gave  rise  to 
the  slander  and  calurnny  mentioned  in  the  text, 
which  appears,  at  that  time,  to  have  gained  a  con- 
siderable ground.  A-n  opinion  had  prevailed,  that, 
as  the  free,  unmerited  grace  of  God  through  Christ 
was,  in  the  estimation  of  a  few,  sure  to  abound 
over  all  manner  of  sin,  tljen  all  manner  of  sin 
might  not  only  be  committed  with  impunity,  but 
that  the  more  evil  a  person  did,  the  jnore  the  grace 
of  God  would  abound  to  him  in  the  redemption  of 
that  evil,  and  they  could  not  see  the  propriety  of 
abstaining  from  it !  They  went  even  further  than 
this.  They  even  said,  u  Let  us  do  evil,  that  good 
may  come."  But  this  was  so  manifest  a  perver- 
sion of  the  truth,  and  withal  so  slanderous  to  the 
characters  of  the  teachers  of  that  doctrine,  that  a 


TTNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.         21 1 

just  punishment  was  pronounced  upon  the  propa- 
gators of  the  slander  —  "Whose  damnation  was 
just."  * 

To  come  down  from  the  apostle's  time,  could 
there  be  a  more  similar,  more  apt,  more  well- 
chosen  case,  to  represent  the  state  of  feeling  and 
character  of  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  a  free 
and  full  redemption  at  the  present  day  ?  Is  there 
not  precisely  the  same  calumny  heaped  upon  the 
doctrine  now,  and  upon  its  honest  advocates  ?  As 
we  stated  at  the  commencement,  it  is  one  of  the 
first,  with  many  the  first  and  the  last  objection, 
that  the  theory  of  a  world's  salvation  by  the  grace 
of  God  prostrates  every  barrier  to  the  commission 
of  evil,  and  permits  the  perpetration  of  the  blackest 
crimes  with  impunity.  The  system  represents  the 
infinite  goodness  of  God,  infinite  in  duration  and 
embrace  ;  declares  that  no  evil,  no  absolute  and 
unmixed  evil,  can  find  a  lodging  in  the  universe  ; 
and  even  maintains  that  sin  itself  shall  ultimately 
merge  in  good,  for  it  shall  be  drowned  in  abound- 
ing, glorifying  grace.  Then  it  is  exclaimed,  in  the 
spirit  and  blindness  of  the  ignorant  Jew,  Why, 
then,  am  I  judged  a  sinner  ?  What  should  restrain 
me  from  evil  ?  It  is  also  slanderously  reported, 
and  some  affirm  that  we  say,  Let  us  da  evil ;  for 
what  should  restrain  us  from  rushing  on  from 
Iniquity  to  iniquity  ?  Go,  blind  stranger,  unto  what 

*  See  Clarke  on  the  whole  of  this  subject. 


212         UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

thou  canst  not  see,  but  may  yet  know ;  go,  learn 
wisdom  from  the  first  principles  of  Christ.  He 
will  instruct  thee  in  a  better  motive,  and  tell  thee 
of  a  better  and  more  honorable  service. 

The  subject  now  opened  to  the  hearer  may  be 
treated  of  in  the  order  best  fitted  to  accomplish  the 
object  of  our  labors.  I  wish  the  hearer  to  remem- 
ber that  the  subject  of  the  text  illustrates  the  nature 
of  the  system  whose  moral  influence  we  would 
represent  and  feel.  It  represents  the  abounding 
goodness  of  God  over  all  the  wickedness  of  man, 
which  is  but  commended  or  illustrated  by  it.  It 
recognizes,  in  principle,  the  great  and  important 
truth  that  Universalists  ever  have  insisted  on,  —  that 
God  is  good,  and  in  his  government  there  is  no 
evil.  Moral  evil  shall  result  in  good.  Punishment 
is  a  means  for  the  attainment  of  good.  In  short, 
good,  good  alone,  is  the  happy  ultimatum  to  which 
all  things  tend.  In  view  of  a  system  so  inexpressi- 
bly glorious  and  grand,  it  is  frequently  queried,  in 
the  spirit  of  the  unsanctified  and  blinded  Jew,  Why 
not  do  evil,  then,  that  good  may  come  ?  or  where 
is  the  restraining  influence  to  prevent  the  com- 
mission of  sin  ?  It  is  our  object  to  answer  this 
question. 

And,  in  the  first  place,  be  it  observed,  that  to  do 
evil  that  good  may  come  is  impossible.  The  very 
phraseology  contains  a  contradiction  in  itself.  The 
design  of  the  actor  gives  the  moral  color  to  the  act. 
To  do  evil  that  good  may  come  must  proceed 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.         213 

from  a  good  design.  The  moment  that  it  is  done 
for  good,  it  is  not  evil.  To  do  evil  that  good  may 
come  is,  therefore,  to  do  good.  The  phrase  con- 
tradicts itself. 

If  it  be  objected  to  this  reasoning,  that  although 
it  may  be  good  in  the  actor,  seeing  that  he  had 
good  intentions,  yet  it  may,  through  his  ignorance 
of  causes,  be  evil  in  its  more  immediate  effects, 
we  acknowlege  the  justness  of  this  view  of  the 
subject ;  and  hence  the  unlawfulness  of  doing  evil 
that  good  may  come.  It  may,  and  is,  in  this 
respect,  a  commission  of  evil  on  our  part. 

But  I  need  not  dwell  upon  the  abstrusities  of  the 
subject.  May  not  a  person  sin,  says  one,  —  may  he 
not  do  wickedly,  and  this  with  great  impunity,  if  he 
has  the  deluded  conviction  of  all-abounding,  univer- 
sal grace  and  good  ?  This  he  may  do.  This  is 
coming  to  the  subject.  And  our  whole  question  is 
—  which  is  the  foundation  of  this  discourse  —  why 
not?  Why  not,  my  Christian  brethren,  as  it  is 
slanderously  reported  of  us,  do  all  manner  of  evil, 
seeing  the  grace  of  God  is  sure  to  abound  over  it  ? 

I.  We  answer  this  question,  in  the  first  place, 
by  an  illustration  from  comparison.  Here  is  a 
man  subjected  to  some  natural  infirmities  of  the 
flesh.  Yet  his  case  is  not  absolutely  fatal,  and 
nothing  but  what  may  be  cured  effectually,  by 
proper  treatment  and  prescription.  And  he  takes 
encouragement  from  this  fact,  —  from  a  knowledge 
of  this  truth.  Now,  will  he  continue  in  this  sickness, 
19 


214         UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

for  a  length  of  time,  and  refuse  to  take  the  medi- 
cine, because  he  knows  he  shall  one  day  recover, 
—  that  the  physician  will  restore  him  ? 

Take  yet  another  case.  Here  is  a  well  man. 
Now  will  he  make  himself  sick  because  he  knows, 
or  thmks  he  knows,  that  he  can  and  shall  recover  ? 
Will  he  rush  into  danger,  will  he  undergo  the  pains 
of  disease,  for  the  purpose  of  testing  the  efficacy 
of  the'  medicine  ? 

Now  take  yet  another.  Here  is  a  sin-sick  souh 
Will  he  continue  in  his  sickness,  in  his  spiritual 
infirmities,  or  will  he  foolishly  rush  into  sin,  be- 
cause he  knows  he  shall  one  day  be  restored  ? 
Will  he  endure  the  pangs  of  transgression,  because 
he  knows  transgression  will  be  finished,  and  ever- 
lasting righteousness  brought  in  ?  Will  he  take 
encouragement  from  a  knowledge  or  a  faith  in-  this 
truth,  to  continue  in  moral  pollution*,  because  the 
great  Physician  shall  one  day  make  him  whole  ? 
Fie,  fie,  on  the  cobweb  reasonings  of  the  doctors  of 
divinity  against  what  they  know  not  and  under- 
stand not.  Sin  is  a  moral  disease  ;  and  it  racks  the 
soul  with  many  moral  torments.  It  is  so  repre- 
sented in  the  Scriptures.  Tell  me,  then,  ye  who 
love  simplicity,  if  ye  will  endure  the  pains  for  the 
sake  of  submitting  to  the  remedy  ;r  if  ye  will  de-' 
stroy  your  moral  health  for  the  sake  of  reinstating 
it  again-;  if  ye  will  make  yourselves  miserable, 
and  poor,  and  wretched,  for  the  all-mortifying 
reason  that  ye  will  one  day  be  rich,  and  comforta- 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.         215 

ble,  and  perfect.  No,  my  fellow-sinner,  you  will 
now  guard  against  iniquity  as  a  pest  and  poison  to 
your  soul.  You  will  nqw  submit  to  the  remedy, 
and  delay  not  till  the  disease  has  reached  a  fearful 
and  more  threatening  crisis.  You  will  now  learn 
wisdom  and  instruction,  for  now  is  the  accepted 
time,  and  now  the  day  of  your  salvation.  Do  not 
evil,  then,  because  of  abounding  good.  Sin  not 
because  of  abounding  grace.  God  forbid ;  but 
grant  that  you  may  be  dead  to  sin,  but  alive  unto 
God,  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 

Perhaps  it  will  be  said  that  this,  after  all,  is  .a 
sophistical  view  of  the  subject ;  that,  withput  the 
fear  of  endless  punishment,  men  will  sin,  in  3pite 
pf  all  the  pains  annexed  to  the  disease.  AVe  re- 
ply, first,  that  the  sinner  is  actuated  by  the  motive 
pf  obtaining  happiness  when  he  ventures  to  trans- 
gress. Now,  until  .any  on,e  will  undertake,  and 
that  successfully,  to  show  that,  even  in  this  world, 
s,in  yields  more  happiness  than  virtue,  —  till  then, 
I  say,  our  representation  will  remain,  not  a  sophis- 
tical, but  a  true  one ;  and  the  system  we  advocate 
has  the  advantage,  even  on  the  score  of  wholesome 
and  restraining  fear.  For  the  fear  of  any  evil 
which  would  overbalance  the  good  of  a  contem- 
plated act,  no  matter  how  much,  is  a  sufficient 
preventive  of  that  act ;  for  no  man  will  go  counter 
to  his  own  interest.  And  as  the  evil  we  hold  out 
is  near  at  hand,  and  not  rendered  ineffectual  from 


216         UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

its  uncertainty  and  distance,  and  possibility  of 
escape  after  all,  I  say  our  system  has  the  advan- 
tage, even  on  the  score  of  terror.  But  this  will 
more  plainly  appear  as  we  proceed. 

In  the  next  place,  we  reply,  that,  if  the  fear  of 
endless  punishment  alone  secures  the  man's  obe- 
dience, his  obedience  is  "  good  for  nothing  ;  "  for 
he  is  only  deterred  from  sin  by  a  hatred  of  its  con- 
sequencesi  which  is  consistent  with  as  great  a  love 
for  sin  as  before  ! 

II.  We  now  pass  to  the  second  division  of  our 
subject.  Why  not  do  evil  in  assurance  of  abound- 
ing grace  ?  We  answer,  the  grace  of  God  does 
not  prevent  his  justice.  "  Shall  we  sin,"  says  the 
apostle,  "  because  we  are  not  under  the  law,  but 
under  grace  ?  God  forbid.  He  that  doeth  wrong 
shall  receive  for  the  wrong  that  he  hath  done ;  and 
there  is  no  respect  of  persons."  It  ought  always 
to  be  remembered  that  Universalists  do  not  dis- 
card the  principle  of  fear  which,  like  faith,  worketh 
by  love,  —  a  filial  fear  of  God  our  Father,  who  pun- 
ishes for  good.  These  chastisements  we  own  and 
fear.  It  ought  always  to  be  remembered  that 
Universalists  can  avail  themselves  of  the  "  terrors 
of  the  law,"  and  they  are  the  only  sect  of  Chris- 
tians who  provide  no  possible  way  of  escape. 
They  know  nothing  of  averting  the  penalty  by  the 
substitution  of  another  sufferer  instead ;  or  by  the 
convenient  work  of  popular  repentance.  They 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

are  free  to  declare,  by  them  alone  "  the  violated 
law  speaks  out  its  thunders  ; "  and  by  them  alone 
"  the  gospel  whispers  peace." 

And  must  we  point  again  to  the  terrors  of  the 
evil  way  ?  Must  we  resume  the  task,  and  tell  the 
sinner  of  his  dangers  ?  Look  through,  sinner, 
look  through  that  external  covering,  into  that  seat 
of  unholy  passions.  Behold  the  tumult  and  the 
uproar  of  those  inferior  faculties,  while  conscience 
sits  as  the  outraged  sovereign  of  the  inner  man. 
Look  at  her  !  She  may  have  been  despised  and 
trampled  on,  but  still  she  announces  the  supremacy 
of  her  inviolable  claims.  Conscience,  though  de- 
prived of  her  rights,  still  continues  to  assert  them. 
"  She  may  have  fallen  from  her  dominion,  yet  still 
she  wears  the  badges  of,  a  fallen  sovereign,  having 
the  acknowledged  right  of  authority,  though  the. 
power  of  enforcement  has  been  wrested  away 
from  her.  She  may  be  outraged  in  all  her  preroga^ 
tives  by  the  lawless  appetites  of  our  nature ;  but 
not  without  the  accompanying  sense  within  of  an 
outrage  and  a  wrong  having  been  inflicted,  and  a 
reclaiming  voice  from  thence  which  causes  itself  to 
be  heard,  and  which  remonstrates  against  it."  * 
And  it  is  this  loud  remonstrance  that  speaks  the 
daggers  to  the  guilty  soul.  No  matter  what  the 
crime  may  be,  it  must  kindle  up  with  it  the 
damning  consciousness  of  guilt.  And  the  fires  of  a^ 

*  Chalmers'  Natural  Theology,  vol.  i.  p.  315. 


218         UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

guilty  conscience,  once  kindled,  will  burn  while 
memory  lasts,  and  justice  fan  the  flame.  All 
vivid  will  it  live  in  the  bosom  of  the  sinner ;  or,  if 
it  sleeps  betimes,  it  is  only  to  arouse  with  a  new 
and  increased  energy,  to  inflict  the  contrast  of  a 
heavier  pang. 

Take  any  of  the  numerous  sons  of  vice,  and 
follow  him  up  in  the  workings  of  his  busy  mind, 
and  you  will  find  this  lesson  fulfilled  upon  him. 
Take  the  thief.  He  "  fears  each  bush  an  officer," 
and  trembles  at  the  flitting  spectres  of  a  frighted 
fancy.  Conscious  that  others  will  not  trust  him, 
he  scarcely  trusts  himself,  and,  worthless  thing, 
quivers  in  perpetual  fear.  Take  the  liar.  He 
may  not  pass  with  the  open  reputation  of  a  liar, 
but  he  will  be  a  poor,  miserable  reflector  upon  his 
own  littleness.  The  nobleness  of  stern  integrity 
can  never  be  about  him ;  and,  in  the  moments  of 
his  busy  memory,  he  will  recoil,  in  shame,  from 
the  moral  likeness  of  himself  which  will  come  up 
before  him.  Or  turn  to  the  slanderer.  If  he  does 
not  bear  the  indignation  of  community,  he  must 
reflect  how  vile  he  is ;  and,  in  the  moments,  too,  of 
his  retirement,  his  miseries  will  rush  upon  him  in 
view  of  the  ruin  he  has  wrought.  The  spectacles 
of  injured  innocence  will  yet  rise  up  and  plead 
their  cause  before  him.  The  murderer,  too,  must 
share  the  general  condemnation.  He  may  flee 
the  retributions  of  the  civil  law,  but  another  hand 
will  arrest  him,  and  another  tribunal  will  condemn. 


UNI  VERBALISM   AGAINST    PARTFALISM.         219 

Upon  his  soul  is  stamped  the  graven  image  of  his 
murdered  brother,  crying  for  vengeance  of  his 
blood.  That  image  will  go  with  him  by  day  and 
by  night;  ghastly  and  threatening  will  it  look  upon 
him. 

But  I  forbear.  Need  I  dwell  upon  the  horrors  of 
a  stricken  conscience  ?  It  is  known  and  felt  by 
all.  But  conscience  may  become  seared.  But 
then,  when  this  happens,  the  deeds  of  virtue  lose 
their  relish,  and  this  insensibility  to  all  good,  this 
negative  punishment,  is  an  evil  quite  as  deplorable 
as  absolute  remorse.  Indeed,  when  the  conscience 
is  gone,  all  is  gone.  The  deeds  of  virtue  meet  not 
their  reward,  and  stupified  iniquity  stalks  abroad  in 
utter  desolation.  Beware,  then,  beware  of  a  con- 
science seared.  You  may  not  feel  that  lively 
compunction  of  guilt,  but  you  will  emphatically 
be  poor,  and  miserable,  and  blind,  and  naked. 

But  I  need  not  dwell  upon  a  stricken  conscience. 
The  system  of  theology  we  espouse  bids  you  look 
abroad  upon  the  vast  gfobe,  and  read  a  lesson  of 
continual  and  ever- varied  justice.  Sin  and  misery, 
you  find,  go  hand  in  hand.  This  is  not  theory, 
but  fact.  I  would  that  I  could  dwell  upon  it,  but  I 
have  other  matters  to  present.  In  the  drunkard's 
portion,  in  the  gambler's  fate,  in  riot,  and  de- 
bauchery, and  every  evil  work,  you  behold  the 
bitter  ingredients  of  misery.  The  earth  responds 
to  the  truth  of  it,  and  heaven  has  declared  its  judg- 
ments upon  the  heads  of  all  who  boast  of  their 


220         TJNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM, 

iniquity.  This  is  the  Universalist's  faith,  and  this 
is  one  reason  why  we  may  nqt  sin  in  assurance  pf 
abounding  grace.  It  is  because  the  grace  of  God 
does  not  prevent  the  execution  of  his  justice. 

Another  reason,  which  we  shall  barely  mention, 
is,  that  a  practice  of  all  the  opposite  virtues  secures 
that  inward  peace  and  outward  joy  which  exalts, 
and  elevates  the  man.  Reverse  the  argument  thus 
far,  and  we  then  have  a  double  reason  for  walking 
in  the  way  of  wisdom,  which  is  peace. 

But  I  must  leave  these  considerations,  as  the, 
apostle  urged  the  leaving  of  the  first  principles  of 
Christ,  to  go  on  to  perfection.  We  can  make  use. 
of  the  principle  of  fear,  but  we  know  that  this  is 
not  the  most  powerful  incentive  to  obedience, 
No ;  it  may  be  the  beginning  of  wisdom,  but  it  is 
not  the  end  of  it.  Another  principle  presents  it- 
self; and  another  reason  why  we  may  not  sin  in 
assurance  of  abounding  grace,  or  do  evil  t}iat  good 
may  cpme,  is  found  in  the  nature  of  that  grace  and 
good  itself.  In  other  words',  the  Universalist's  view 
of  the  divine  goodness,  as  perceived  in  nature  and 
in  grace,  presents  the  most  powerful  motive  in  the 
universe  for  securing  obedience  to  the  divine  com- 
mands. To  present  this  subject  clearly,  let  us 
look  again  at  the  nature  of  the  charge  which  is 
under  consideration,  which  is  urged  against  the 
purity  of  our  faith.  It  is  that  it  is  a  licentious 
theory  ;  that  it  cuts  off  all  moral  restraint ;  that,  in 
fact,  it  saps  the  very  foundation  of  true  morality 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.         221 

and  social  order,  and,  should  it  universally  prevail, 
would  completely  prostrate  the  cause  of  religion 
and  virtue  in  the  earth.  We  are  not  under  any 
apprehensions  that  the  objection  may  be  stated  too 
strongly ;  for  the  stronger  you  make  it,  the  stronger 
you  give  us  the  argument  against  it.  This,  then, 
is  the  objection ;  and  now  we  are  prepared  to  meet 
and  to  destroy  it. 

There  are  two  questions  concerning  this  subject, 
and  only  two,  which,  when  they  are  answered,  will 
cover  the  whole  ground,  and  settle  forever  the 
question  in  dispute : 

I.  What  is  true  morality  ;  or,  if  you  please,  true 
practical  religion,  —  the  sum  and  substance  of  all 
our  duty  ? 

II.  What  are  the  means  or  measures  best  adapt- 
ed to  produce  it  ? 

I.  First,  then,  what  is  true  morality  —  true  prac- 
tical religion  —  the  sum  and  substance  of  all  our 
duty  ?  "  Hear,  O  Israel !  The  Lord  our  God  is 
one  Lord ;  and  thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God 
with  all  thy  heart,  and  with  all  thy  soul,  and  with 
all  thy  mind,  and  with  all  thy  strength.  This  is 
the  first  commandment.  And  the  second  is  like, 
namely,  this :  Thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbor  as 
thyself.  There  is  none  other  commandment 
greater  than  these."  What!  none  other  com- 
mandment greater  than  these  !  No  ;  "  On  these 
two  commandments  hang  all  the  law  and  the 
prophets," — all  that  it  and  they  have  said  with 


222         UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

regard  to  the  duty  of  roan;  and,  permit  me  to  say, 
all  that  can  be  said,  in  truth,  on  this  mornentous 
subject. 

I  fifx  and  rest  upon  this  truth.  I  wish  to  dwell 
upon  it  briefly,  but  long  enough  to  realize  its  im- 
portance and  its  wide-embracing  principle.  Let 
us  have  a  sure  and  safe  starting-place  in  the  outset 
of  this  argument,  that  we  may  see  it  in  all  its 
clearness,  and  be  prepared  at  least  with  one  weap- 
on, to  repel  the  slanderous  accusatipn  against  the 
hQliness  of  our  faith.  I  would  have  it  understood 
what  true  morality  and  pure  obedience  consists  in. 
For  this  is  of  vital  importance  to  our  argument  in 
the  outset ;  because,  if  we  do  not  know  the  source 
arid  substance  of  all  true  obedience,  in  vain  do  we 
argue  the  licentiousness  of  any  sentiment.  We 
affirm,  and  that  on  inspired  authority,  that  it  is 
nothing  more  nor  less  than  simple  love  to  God  and 
man.  And  when  we  say  that  this  comprehends 
the  sum  and  substance  of  all  our  duty,  we  mean—-: 
what  undoubtedly  the  Saviour  of  the  world  meant 
—  that,  if  these  two  commands  are  obeyed,  all 
others,  all  the  detail  and  circumstantial  pf  moral 
duty,  follow  on  as  a  matter  of  necessary  course, 
perfecting  the  whole  man,  and  causing  him  not 
only  to  run,  but  to  run  with  delight,  in  the  way  of 
all  the  commandments  of  God. 

Having  made  the  affirmation,  we  are  now  pre- 
pared tp  prove  it  by  a  very  brief  recurrence  to  the 
philosophy  and  nature  of  mental  operation. 


TJNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.         223 

1.  With  regard  to:  the  duties  which  we  owe  to 
God.     Is  it  agreeable  to  what  we  know  of  the  play 
of  human    feeling,  to  suppose   that   any  person, 
uftder  the  influence  of  a  supreme  and  ardent  affec- 
tion for  his  Maker,  would  be  prompted  to  rebellion-, 
irreverence,  or  ingratitude  against  him  ?     The  very 
question   carries   with    it    a    moral    contradiction. 
Affection  and   rebellion  cannot  exist  at  the  same 
time,  and  towards  the  same  object.     I  speak  not  of 
a  partial  reverence  and  affection  for  the  God  of 
heaven.     I  speak  of  a  full  and  supreme  attach- 
ment ;  and  I  say,  with  such  a  feeling,  disobedient 
in  any  form  cannot  coexist.     I  have  your  assent, 
and  I  therefore  dismiss  the  subject. 

2.  But  it  is  with  regard  to  the  second  command- 
ment, the  duties  which  we  owe  to  our  fellow-men, 
that  the  cry  of  licentiousness  is  particularly  raised 
against  our  sentiments.     "  No  endless  hell !     All 
to  be  saved  !  "     Then,  in  a  spirit  truly  mortifying; 
it  is  said,  "  Let  us  lie,  steal,  cheat,  murder 'T —  but 
stop !     What  can  effectually  prevent  all  this  out- 
breaking ?     Suppose  a  man  should  happen  to  love 
his  neighbor  as  himself,  or  to  the  fall  extent  im- 
plied by  this  command ;  do  you  think  he  would 
cheat,  rob,  or  murder  him  ?     Do  we  not  see  that  it 
is  here,  here  in   these   two    great   corresponding 
affections,  that  an  effectual  check  is  placed  at  once 
upon  all  manner  of  iniquity  ?     Only  get  a  man 
under  the  influence  of  these  two  great  affections, 
and  he  is  more  secure  than  he  would  be  were  hor 


224         UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

inclosed  in  walls  of  brass.  He  may  break  through 
prison  walls  to  repeat  his  depredations ;  but  I  defy 
him  to  break  through  the  strength  of  genuine  love 
to  injure  any  man.  I  conclude  this  part  of  the 
subject ;  and  I  think  I  have  your  full  assent,  that 
true  morality  —  true  practical  religion  —  the  sum 
and  substance  of  all  our  duty,  is  simple  love  to 
God  and  man.  So  saith  the  Scriptures ;  and  so 
in  truth  it  is.  There  is,  absolutely,  no  duty, 
moral,  social,  political,  or  religious,  but  what 
would  flow  spontaneously  from  such  a  full  and 
free  affection.  Now, 

II.  What  are  the  means  or  measures  best  adapt- 
ed to  produce  it  ? 

1.  With  regard  to  the  love  of  God.  Tell  me, 
Christians,  what  is  best  adapted  to  promote  love  to 
the  Creator.  Speak,  now,  out  of  the  honesty  of 
your  hearts.  Is  it,  O,  is  it  the  doctrine  of  his 
endless  wrath  and  hatred  ?  I  propose  this  ques- 
tion, because  those  who  accuse  Universalists  of 
undermining  the  foundation  of  all  true  obedience, 
assign  as  the  all-sufficient  reason,  that  we  hold  not 
up  the  fear  of  endless  punishment;  which  is  the 
effect  of  enmity  and  hatred.  But  these  same 
Christians  seem  to  forget  that  what  they  call  true 
obedience  is  all  comprehended  in,  and  flows  from, 
simple  love  to  God  and  man.  I  wish  this  point  to 
be  remembered.  And  now  I  do  not  ask  if  the 
threat  of  endless  wo  can  ever  make  us  outwardly 
comply  with  many  requisitions,  when  the  heart  is 


UN1VERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM.         225 

not  in  the  service.  I  do  not  ask  if  it  can  ever 
make  us  fear  God.  But  I  ask,  simply,  if  it  can 
ever  make  us  love  God.  Is  it  possible,  by  the 
threat  of  unmingled  and  abiding  hatred,  to  produce 
unmingled  and  abiding  love  ?  Alas  for  the  day 
when  a  point  so  simple  is,  by  the  corruptions  of  a 
false  theology,  made  necessary  to  be  argued  in 
this  nineteenth  century  of  Christian  light ! 

Tell  me  not  of  the  love  of  benevolence,  in  dis-* 
tinction  from  complacency,  which  is  exercised  for 
all.  Call  not  on  the  sinner  to  love  the  Lord  his 
God,  for  the  reason,  merely,  that  benevolence  is 
cherished  for  him,  though  complacency  is  not.  In 
the  name  of  reason,  I  ask,  would  you  call  upon  a 
creature  to  love  a  benevolence  that  would  damn 
him  through  the  ages  of  eternity  ?  Do  not  make 
such  abuse  of  words.  It  is  enmity,  it  is  boundless 
wrath,  it  is  utter  extinction  of  all  love,  you  preach 
to  mortal  men ;  and  thus  you  are  trying  to  gain 
upon  the  heart's  affections  ! 

To  return  to  our  former  reasonings,  love  is  the 
same  in  principle,  wherever  that  divine  influence 
operates  in  the  universe  of  God.  Now  does  it 
tend,  in  its  operations  on  the  earth,  to  diminish  our 
love,  and  to  kindle  up  our  hatred,  towards  a  fel- 
low-being who  looks  with  grace  and  benignity 
upon  us  ?  Now  does  not  the  same  reasoning  hold 
good  when  carried  up  to  him  who  is  our  Creator  ? 
Carry  it  up,  I  say.  Tell  us,  if  by  proclaiming  his 
20 


226         UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

love  to  the  children  of  men,  —  by  successfully  la- 
boring to  convince  them  of  their  heavenly  Father's 
goodness,  —  by  the  deep-settled  assurance  and  the 
immovable  confidence  in  the  strength  and  infinity 
of  that  undying  affection  of  our  Creator, — do  we, 
O,  do  we  kindle  up  the  fires  of  pure  hatred,  to 
defile  the  altar  of  the  human  heart? 

Are  we,  then,  undermining  the  foundations  of 
•all  true  obedience  ?  If  so,  Christians,  what  are 
they  doing,  who,  in  this  great  work  of  promoting 
love  to  God,  are  declaring  and  depicting,  in  all  the 
colors  of  mortal  eloquence,  his  everlasting  hatred  ? 

2.  What  means  are  best  adapted  to  produce 
obedience  to  the  second  command, — a  genuine, 
brotherly  affection  for  the  children  of  humanity  ? 
The  question,  in  part,  is  answered  by  the  remarks 
already  offered.  He  who  loves  his  Maker  most 
will  have  the  most  affection  for  his  fellow-men. 
He  who  delights  most  in  the  Creator  will  delight 
most  in  the  objects  of  his  creation.  If  the  doctrine 
of  God's  hatred,  enmity,  or  wrath  —  call  it  either 
name  you  please — will  not  produce  love  to  him, 
neither  will  it  to  the  creatures  he  has  formed. 

Besides,  this  doctrine  expressly  teaches  that  all 
men  are  not  the  children  of  God,  —  that  some  are 
the  children  of  the  devil,  (see  our  third  lecture,) 
lumps  of  depravity,  the  objects  of  God's  wrath,  and 
the  devoted  victims  of  his  hot  displeasure.  How, 
then,  can  it  produce  a  fraternal  and  free  affection 


TINIVERSALISM    AGAINST   PARTIALISM.         227 

for  all  mankind  ?  When  will  it  ?  When  the  sun 
emits  darkness ;  when  the  stream  runs  higher  and 
purer  than  the  fountain. 

Mind  you,  I  have  not  said  that  no  believer  in 
this  doctrine  is  in  possession  of  this  love.  All  I 
have  said  is,  that  it  is  not  this  doctrine  which  pro- 
duces it.  It  proceeds,  as  we  shall  show  hereafter, 
from  a  better  ingredient  in  these  same  Christians' 
faith. 

Having  arrived  thus  far  in  the  stage  of  our  argu- 
ment, we  may  anticipate ,  an  objection.  We  may 
be  accused  of  misrepresenting  the  subject.  We 
have  dwelt  upon  the  threat  of  endless  punishment, 
as  the  effect  of  endless  enmity  and  hatred,  and 
remarked  upon  the  feebleness  of  this  in  exciting 
men  to  love  their  Maker  and  their  fellow-men. 
But  it  may  be  said  we  have  omitted  the  other  half 
of  this  great  gospel  influence,  —  the  promise  of 
endless  and  unutterable  joy  as  a  reward,  as  well 
as  the  threatening  of  unceasing  misery.  Both 
these  influences,  we  are  reminded,  must  be  brought 
to  bear  upon  the  sinner. 

In  reply,  we  would  say,  we  are  willing  to  take 
both  these  influences  —  denying  to  them,  however, 
the  appellation  of  gospel  influences  —  and  build 
our  argument  conjointly  upon  them.  And  here 
we  are  furnished  with  a  splendid  opportunity  of 
observing  the  futility  of  these  popular  measures  to 
induce  men  to  love  God  and  one  another,  according 


228         UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST   PARTIAL1SM. 

to  the  two  commandments.  There  are  two  ways 
in  which  the  case  may  be  made  out. 

1.  Be  it  observed,  that  this,  unutterable,  endless 
joy,  which  is  affirmed  to  be  the  reward  of  the 
righteous  who  have  forsaken  their  sins,  is  repre- 
sented as  the  effect  of  the  love  of  their  Creator, 
(complacency,  1  suppose  !)  which,  by  their  love,  is 
reciprocated  by  him.  This  is  really  delightful ! 
We  had  always  thought,  the  apostle  had  the  right 
of  the  matter,  when  he  said,  "  We  love  him  be- 
cause he  first  loved  us."  But  the  beautiful  theory 
in  question  would  reverse  the  matter,  and  make  it 
out  that  God  loves  us  because  wejirst  loved  him  ! 
or  that  he  hates  us  while  we  hate  him,  and  begins 
to  turn  when  we  turn,  and  stops  just  where  our  love 
determines  him ! !  This  is  really  paying  small 
regard  to  the  unchangeable  attributes  of  God, 
though  it  may  be  quite  a  felicitous  way  to  induce 
men  to  govern  the  affections  of  the  Almighty 
Ruler. 

But  our  object  is,  not  so  much  to  show  the  ab- 
surdity of  the  theory,  as  the  inefficiency  of  its 
practical  influence  in  inducing  obedience  to  the 
great  commandment.  Suppose,  indeed,  it  were 
the  fact,  that  God  love's  us  when  we  Jove  him,  and 
not  before.  Then  it  would  follow,  that,  while 
alienated  from  him  in  rebellion,  we  are  the  objects 
of  the  Almighty's  hatred.  And  this  is  precisely 
what  is  preached  to  us.  Now  it  is  in  such  a  con- 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM.         229 

dition  —  a  state  of  sin  and  hatred  on  our  part  —  that 
we  are  called  upon  to  love  G0d.  Evidently,  then, 
the  influence  of  God's  love  cannot  be  brought  to 
bear  upon  such  persons ;  for,  according  to  the  very 
doctrine  which  makes  the  appeal,  God  has  no  love 
for  them  until  they  love  him.  That  is,  none  but 
the  love  of  benevolence,  so  called,  which  would 
damn  them  through  eternity !  While  in  sin  and 
hatred  themselves,  then,  how  are  they  to  be 
brought  to  love  their  Maker?  His  love  cannot 
influence  them,  for  he  does  not  love  them  yet. 
Where,  then,  is  the  mighty  influence  of  the  other 
half  of  this  theory,  which  we  were  accused  of 
keeping  out  of  sight  ?  The  fact  is  this  :  —  There  is 
no  other  half  of  the  theory,  until  the  practical  part 
of  the  matter  is  first  performed  by  man !  There 
is  nothing  but  God's  dreadful  and  overwhelming 
hatred  to  induce  him  to  love  God  ;  and  we  ask  you 
again,  my  friends,  if  this  can  do  the  gracious  work. 
I  wish  you  to  understand  that  the  promise  of 
God's  love,  when  man  begins  to  love  him  —  say 
nothing  of  the  inconsistency  of  the  matter  —  is  not 
sufficient.  There,  according  to  this  doctrine,  ex- 
ists the  Almighty ;  filled  with  hatred  to  the  hating 
sinner ;  and  now,  how  is  it  possible  for  the  sinner 
to  love  a  Being  who  cherishes  such  unbounded  hate 
for  him,  even  though  the  love  of  that  Being  should 
afterward  be  the  reward  ?  The  thing  is  to  get  him 
to  love  that  hateful  Being  first ! 
20* 


230         UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIAL1SM. 

2.  The  ulter  futility  and  folly  of  these  popular 
measures  to  induce  obedience  may  now  be  seen  in 
another  light.  My  brethren,  what  is  the  nature  of 
love  ?  Is  it  any  thing  that  can  be  forced,  or  ex- 
torted by  any  thing  but  a  perception  of  loveliness 
in  the  object  loved  ?  This  is  an  exceedingly  sim- 
ple question,  but  the  state  of  popular  opinion  ren- 
ders it  necessary  that  it  should  be  put.  Many 
people  seem  to  think  that  men  can  be  driven  or 
induced  to  love  their  Maker,  by  motives  or  con- 
siderations apart  from  his  moral  loveliness  or 
beauty.  I  care  not  which  you  take,  —  whether  the 
threatening  of  punishment,  or  the  promise  of  re- 
ward. The  thing  to  be  accomplished  is,  to  create 
in  man  the  exercise  of  love.  And  I  say,  it  is  a 
moral  impossibility  to  accomplish  this,  either  by 
promises  or  threatenings.  And  the  impossibility 
looks  greater  and  more  hopeless,  when  the  sinner 
whom  God  hates  is  called  upon  to  exercise  this 
love.  Would  this  threatened  punishment,  or  prom- 
ised reward,  have  any  influence  in  changing  the 
nature  of  the  object  to  be  loved  ?  We  conclude, 
therefore,  that  the  popular  measures  for  inducing 
men  to  love  their  Creator,  or  their  fellow-men,  are 
not  only  utterly  vain  and  futile,  but  betray  the 
grossest  ignorance  of  some  of  the  simplest  opera- 
tions of  the  human  mind. 

There  is  no  way  by  which  our  partialist  breth- 
ren can  escape  from  this  conclusion,  but  by 
denying  outright  that  they  ever  attempt  to  make 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.         231 

men  love  their  Maker  and  their  fellow-men  by 
holding  out  this  threat  of  endless  punishment.  If 
they  take  this  ground,  then  they  must  acknowledge 
one  or  the  other  of  two  things :  either  that,  when 
the  threat  in  question  is  put  in  requisition,  they  try 
to  produce  a  different  kind  of  obedience  from  what 
God  requires,  and  only  flows  from  love ;  or  that 
the  threat  in  question  is  altogether  unavailing  for 
the  purpose.  They  may  choose  which  horn  of  the 
dilemma  they  please.  If  they  take  the  former, 
they  must  tell  us,  candidly,  that  they  are  not 
laboring  to  promote  the  will  of  God  in  the  earth, 
by  securing  the  obedience  which  his  law  requires : 
if  they  take  the  latter,  they  must  acknowledge  that 
the  doctrine  in  question,  if  true,  is  "  good  for 
ilothing,"  and  that  they  are  "  wearying  for  very 
vanity."  Choose  which  they  please,  they  must 
choose  one. 

"  But  stop,"  says  the  hearer,  "  it  cannot  be  that 
so  many  are  mistaken,  —  that  the  mighty  energies 
of  '  infinite  joy  and  endless  wo,'  which  have  so 
long  been  put  in  requisition,  are  so  entirely  una- 
vailable in  producing  love  and  obedience.  They 
must  do  something."  Yes,  my  brethren,  this  is 
true.  They  do  something.  They  produce  both 
love  and  obedience.  They  drive  men  into  many 
outward  conformities,  —  keep  men  in  the  practice 
of  many  virtues  which  they  might  not  follow  were 
it  not  for  that  fear ;  which  obedience  is  both  unac- 
ceptable, and  consistent  with  great  love  for  sin ;  and 


232         UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

they  produce  much  love  for  that  reward  held  out 
for  their  attainment,  which  serves  only  to  alienate 
the  heart  from  the  only  proper  object  of  its  affec- 
tions. Ah !  here  is  the  secret  and  end  of  the 
matter.  Here  the  concealed  abomination  puts  out 
its  cloven  foot.  Too  many  Christians,  it  is  feared, 
love  the  idea  of  a  reward  of  endless  happiness,  and 
the  idea  of  escape  from  endless  torments,  more 
than  they  do  their  Maker.  And  it  is  such  love, 
and  such  obedience,  which  the  doctrine  of  endless 
rewards  and  punishments  is  eminently  adapted  to 
produce.  These  truths,  we  know,  break  open  the 
secrets  of  many  hearts ;  but  it  is  our  business  to 
dissect  the  human  heart ;  and  nowhere  can  the 
moral  dissecting  knife  be  applied  with  more  suc- 
cess than  in  reference  to  the  motives  which  prompt 
to  human  duty. 

From  the  whole  of  this  subject,  as  thus  far  de- 
veloped, we  may  see  clearly  the  following  truths : 
that  love  to  God  and  love  to  man  is  the  sum  and 
substance  of  all  our  duty ;  that,  consequently,  it 
is  not  the  doctrine  of  God's  love  that  is  under- 
mining all  morality  and  religion  ;  but  (mark,  now,) 
the  opposite  doctrine. —  the  doctrine  of  God's  hatred, 
so  far  as  the  first  and  second  commands  are  con- 
cerned, is  actually  undermining,  or  effectually  pre- 
venting, the  obedience  of  mankind  ! 

Christians  of  all  denominations,  let  us  not  now 
be  misunderstood  !  God  forbid  that  I  should  affirm 
that  no  believers  in  this  doctrine  do  love  their 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM.         233 

Maker  and  their  fellow-men.  We  affirm  no  such 
thing.  What  we  say  is,  and  that  in  truth  which 
cannot  be  gainsayed,  that  it  is  not  this  doctrine 
which  induces  them  to  love  God  or  man.  No ;  I 
despise  the  thought.  It  is  a  mental  and  moral  im- 
possibility and  absurdity.  THE  LOVE  OF  CHRIST  is 
the  prevailing  theme,  ever  with  those  who  "  limit 
the  Holy  One  of  Israel."  The  abhorrent  features  of 
their  faith  are  not  realized  in  their  exaltations  for 
redeeming  love.  And  it  is  love,  after  all,  which 
creates  in  them  any  compliance  with  the  two  great 
commands.  The  simple  idea  of  endless  torments 
never  did,  and  never  caw,  produce  one  spark  of 
love  to  the  Creator  or  the  creatures  he  has  formed. 
On  the  contrary,  so  far  as  this  idea  is  realized, 
so  far  as  it  becomes  operative  in  the  human  mind, 
among  the  moral  sentiments,  it  must  harden  the  « 
heart,  and  diminish  that  love  for  God  and  man 
which  otherwise  would  be  called  into  natural  and 
healthy  exercise.  This  it  must  do,  from  the  very 
make  and  constitution  of  humanity. 

Away,  then,  with  the  idea  that  the  doctrine  of 
God's  unbounded  and  all-powerful  grace  is  inju- 
rious to  the  cause  of  public  morals !  So  far  as  the 
opposite  doctrine  affects  a  moral  action  related  to 
the  two  commandments,  it  does  indisputably  pre- 
vent the  obedience  of  mankind. 

As  a  last  resort,  it  may  be  said  that  the  fear  of 
the  Lord  in  this  light  is  the  beginning  of  wisdom : 
it  may  arouse  the  sinner  to  conviction  of  his  guilt ; 


234         TTNIVERSAL1SM    AGAINST   PARTIAL1SM. 

and,  after  that,  there  may  be  presented  the  more 
powerful  influence  of  love.  Reply,  —  the  fear  of 
the  LORD  is  the  beginning  of  wisdom  ;  but  not  the 
fear  of  the  devil ,  or  of  endless  punishment.  The 
premises  are  thus  destroyed  on  which  this  reason- 
ing is  founded.  Besides,  it  is  very  questionable 
whether  love  is  not  the  best  motive  to  begin  with. 
A  filial  fear,  fear  of  offending  God,  Universalists 
acknowledge.  This  is  consistent  with  love.  A 
slavish  fear  of  endless  torment  is  not.  A  filial  fear 
may  be  the  beginning  of  wisdom.  Such  a  fear  is 
very  nearly  allied  to  love  itself.  It  is  the  fear  of  a 
parent  who  never  punishes  but  in  love,  and  for  the 
attainment  of  a  good  and  holy  end.  In  short,  a 
filial  fear  of  God,  God's  hatred  of  sin  and  undying 
love  for  the  sinner,  —  these  are  the  enginery  of  our 
moral  power,  by  which  the  stubborn  foe  must  bow, 
and  the  increase  of  a  pure  obedience  rise. 

How  lucid,  then,  is  the  conclusion  to  which  this 
subject  leads  us !  Tell  us  no  more  of  the  licen- 
tiousness of  our  faith.  Settle  the  question,  first, 
what  true  obedience  consists  in.  See  that  it  is 
comprehended  in,  and  flows  from,  two  great  cor- 
responding affections ;  and  then  ask,  what  is  best 
adapted  to  produce  it  ?  We  may  be  in  error  ;  we 
claim  not  infallibility ;  we  may  have  an  erroneous 
theory,  and  so  may  our  antagonists.  But  that  we 
have  a  licentious  one,  —  one  calculated  to  promote 
iniquity,  to  cut  off  all  moral  restraint,  to  diminish, 
in  short,  our  love  to  God  and  love  to  man,  on 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST 

which  all  true  obedience  is  foundeS 
cusation  which  we  KNOW  to  be  false,"1 
harmless  at  our  feet,  and  rebounds  with  teiiloTi 
vengeance  against  those  systems  of  wrath  and 
hatred  which  the  wisdom  of  this  world  hath  in- 
vented. 

We  have  not  quite  finished  the  subject.  Bear 
with  me  a  little  while,  and  I  will  now  proceed  to 
the  last  consideration.  We  now  leave  theory  and 
proceed  to  fact.  Beautiful  in  theory,  it  may  and 
has  been  said,  is  the  doctrine  of  God's  love  for  the 
reformation  of  the  world  ;  but  theorizing  and  actual 
experiment  might  clash  in  sorrowful  destruction. 
In  short,  it  has  been  asserted  in  a  tone  of  confi- 
dence, that  the  mild  ministrations  of  benignity  and 
kindness  may  do  for  the  more  peaceable,  refined, 
and  cultivated,  and  the  less  criminal  of  mankind  ; 
but  that  there  are  certain  hardened  and  abandoned 
villains  whom  nothing  but  horrible  terror  will  sub- 
due. These,  it  is  said,  need  the  appalling  and  the 
fearful,  and  the  prospect  of  the  most  .soul-quivering 
calamities.  And  so,  in  precise  accordance  there- 
with, the  measures  have  been  put  in  requisition. 
Those  who  think  thus  of  human  nature  have  acted 
up  to  their  belief.  And  the  pulpit,  instead  of  a 
vehicle  of  gospel  grace,  has  been  converted  to  a 
citadel  of  Sinai,  to  hurl  its  thunders,  and  dart  its 
lightnings  from  afar.  The  eloquence  of  these 
ambassadors  is  that  of  terror  and  alarm.  The 
godlike  messages  of  love  have  lost  their  efficiency 


236         UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

with  them,  at  least  in  appearance.  They  must 
resort  to  some  more  effectual  method.  The  earth- 
quake, the  thunderbolt  and  storm,  —  these  are  the 
enginery  of  their  moral  power,  and  the  instruments 
to  strike  and  subdue  the  heart. 

Now  we  are  not  going  to  deny  that  there  are 
"  hardened  villains,"  or  sturdy,  stout-hearted  crimi- 
nals. But  it  is  a  question  with  us,  after  all, 
whether  they  can  be  softened  by  the  terrible  meas- 
ures proposed.  We  deny  it  outright ;  and  if  you 
have  ever  seen  these  measures  resorted  to  and  put 
in  operation,  you  must  yourselves  have  become 
convinced  that  such  have  mistaken  the  nature  of 
man.  Human  nature  is  the  same,  the  world  over. 
There  are  various  aspects  of  it,  under  various  cir- 
cumstances, but  there  is  yet  a  universal  principle 
in  the  heart  that  will  not  yield  at  brutish  treatment, 
but  may  still,  with  proper  means,  be  turned  and 
wrought  upon  at  will. 

But  we  were  to  leave  theory  and  proceed  to  fact. 
And,  out  of  the  numerous  cases  illustrative  of  our 
subject,  we  hardly  know  where  to  make  the  selec- 
tion at  first.  Scriptural  examples  you  are  all 
familiar  with ;  yet  I  would  not  leave  the  Holy 
Volume,  to  present,  entirely,  cases  of  profane 
occurrence.  What  but  the  kindness  of  Joseph 
brought  tears  of  contrition  and  of  gratitude  from 
the  eyes  of  that  rebellious  band  of  brethren  ?  Re- 
verse the  circumstances.  Imagine  Joseph,  on  that 
melting  occasion,  to  have  acted  the  revengeful 


TTNJVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM.         237 

tyrant,  —  to  have  assumed  and  maintained  the  repel- 
ling rigor  of  unforgiving  hatred.  Think  you  his 
brethren  would  have  "  wept  upon  his  neck  ? " 
Ay,  they  might  have  wept,  but  they  would  have 
been  the  tears  of  congealed  impenitence  and  fear. 
Else,  perchance,  they  would  have  been  over- 
whelmed with  terror,  and  fled,  in  unreconcilia- 
tion,  away.  Here  is  one  instance,  then,  where  the 
all-subduing  power  of  kindness  —  kindness  even 
against  unbrotherly  treachery  and  wickedness  — 
took  a  gracious  and  a  quick  effect.  What  would 
hatred  have  done,  what  would  revenge  and  retali- 
ation have  done,  in  the  case  which  now  has  formed 
one  of  the  most  affecting  and  memorable  stories  of 
sacred  history  ? 

Take  another  case  in  the  history  of  Saul  and 
David.  Whoever  will  read  the  history  referred  to, 
will  not  hesitate  to  allow  that  the  malice  pf  Saul 
against  David  was  of  the  most  inveterate  and  de- 
termined kind.  He  sought  his  death,  and  was  bent 
upon  it ;  and  what,  my  hearers,  saved  him  from 
the  murderous  plot  ?  Was  it  the  omnipotence  of 
terror  ?  'T  was  a  higher  power  than  this.  When 
David  had  secreted  himself  in  a  cave  for  security, 
with  his  followers  with  him,  Saul  accidentally  en- 
tered, and  placed  himself,  unwittingly,  in  the 
power  of  his  enemy.  The  men  of  David  perceived 
the  condition  of  the  king,  and  apparently  exulted 
in  the  opportunity  of  destroying  him.  But  did 
David  avail  himself  of  the  opportune  occasion? 


238         UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

He  remained  silent  till  Saul  rose  up  to  go  away ; 
then  he  called  upon  him  in  surprise,  "  My  lord  the 
king!  behold,  this  day  thine  eyes  have  seen  how 
that  the  Lord  had  delivered  thee  into  mine  hand  in 
the,  cave  ;  and  some  bade  me  kill  thee  ;  but  mine 
eye  spared  thee.  Moreover,  see,  yea,  see  the  skirt 
of  thy  robe  in  my  hand  ;  for  in  that  I  cut  off  the 
skirt  of  thy  robe,  (which  he  did  privily,)  and  killed 
thee  not,  know  thou  and  see  that  there  is  neither 
evil  nor  transgression  in  mine  hand ;  yet  thou 
huntest  my  soul  to  take  it.  The  Lord  judge  be- 
tween me  and  thee,  and  the  Lord  avenge  me  of 
thee  ;  but  mine  hand  shall  not  be  upon  thee.  As 
saith  the  proverb  of  the  ancients,  Wickedness  pro- 
ceedeth  from  the  wicked  ;  but  mine  hand  shall  not 
be  upon  thee.  And  it  came  to  pass  when  David 
had  made  an  end  of  speaking  these  words  unto 
Saul,  that  Saul  said,  Is  this  thy  voice,  my  son 
David  ?  And  Saul  lifted  up  his  voice  and  wept !  " 
Behold  the  power  of  kindness  even  against  your 
hard-hearted  ones !  "  And  Saul  said  to  David,, 
Thou  art  more  righteous  than  I ;  for  thou  hast  re- 
warded me  good,  whereas  I  have  rewarded  thee 
evil.  And  thou  hast  showed  this  .  day  how  that 
thou  hast  dealt  well  with  me  ;  forasmuch  as,  when 
the  Lord  had  delivered  me  into  thine  hand,  thou 
killedst  me  not.  For  if  a  man  rind  his  enemy,,  will 
he  let  him  go  well  away  ?  Wherefore,  the  Lord 
reward  thee  good  for  that  thou  hast  done  unto  me 
this  day."  (1  Sam.  xxiv.) 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST   PARTIALISM.         239 

What  but  kindness,  Christians,  could  have  done 
this  ?  What  other  power  could  have  softened  the 
hardness  of  his  heart,  and  destroyed  his  murderous 
design,  and  called  forth  from  his  mouth  the  prayers 
of  good  for  David  ?  Here  was  one  of  your  hard- 
hearted—  villain,  if  you  please  to  call  him.  Yet 
what  but  kindness  would  have  thus  miraculously 
wrought  upon  him  ?  Can  ye  say,  then,  that  there 
are  some  whom  nothing  but  horrible  terror  will 
subdue  ?  Rest  assured,  my  brethren,  that  human 
nature  is  the  same  even  in  the  hearts  of  the  most 
desperate  and  cruel.  There  is,  O,  there  is  yet  a 
latent  spark  which  can  be  wrought  upon  by  the 
demonstrations  of  tenderness,  which  no  wicked- 
ness can  vitiate,  and  no  depravity  extinguish. 

To  turn  from  the  Bible  to  other  testimony,  to 
other  facts,  in  support  of  our  subject,  it  is  enough, 
perhaps,  if  I  barely  mention  the  talismanic  name 
of  Howard.  What  did  he  do  ?  He  travelled  all 
over  England,  Ireland,  and  Scotland,  and  a  consid- 
erable part  of  the  continent  of  Europe,  illustrating 
and  establishing  the  truth  of  our  theory,  —  soften- 
ing the  asperities  of  revenge,  converting  obdu- 
rateness  into  penitency,  resistance  into  compliance, 
vice  into  virtue,  the  worst  and  most  inveterate  of 
criminals  and  hopeless  desperadoes  into  gentle, 
manageable,  obedient  subjects,  by  the  simple  yet 
all-powerful  application  of  kindness  ;  and  this,  too, 
where  cruel  treatment,  stripes,  and  lashes — your 
modern,  "  evangelical"  coercive  measures — only 


240         UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

kindled  up  a  still  stouter  defiance  than  ever.  Go 
to  the  savages,  if  you  want  to  talk  of  this  ;  but  tell 
it  not  in  Gath,  nor  publish  it  in  Askelon. 

Take  another  case.  I  refer  to  the  admirable 
Oberlin.  A  native  of  Strasburg,  on  the  borders  of 
France  and  Germany,  of  great  characteristic  and 
native  benevolence  of  heart,  his  only  ambition  was 
to  be  useful  to  mankind.  For  this  purpose,  he 
undertook  to  civilize  and  moralize  a  half- barbarous 
race.  He  worked  among  the  rudest  materials, 
and  amid  the  most  formidable  difficulties,  both  of  a 
physical  and  moral  nature.  He  attempted  to  fer- 
tilize the  country  where  the  soil  was  hard  and 
uncongenial,  the  whole  territory  mountainous  and 
barren,  and  the  inhabitants,  as  before  intimated, 
of  a  moral  likeness  to  the  natural  aspect  around. 
The  place  he  thus  selected  for  his  operations  was 
about  twenty  miles  from  the  city  of  Strasburg, 
the  place  of  his  nativity  and  education.  It  was 
almost  excluded  from  the  rest  of  the  world  ;  but 
here  this  man  of  usefulness  went,  and  formed  the 
design  of  making  the  "  desert  blossom  as  the  rose." 
He  was  the  minister  of  a  parish  church ;  and,  from 
the  very  character  of  his  office,  we  might  not  im- 
agine him  to  have  gone  with  carnal  weapons  to 
subdue  the  barbarism,  and  civilize  and  Christianize 
the  place.  No ;  but  he  went  with  the  all-conquer- 
ing weapons  of  love  and  good-will.  He  met  with 
resistance,  and  even  combinations  of  enmity  against 
him.  But  he  gradually  became  successful,  im- 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM.         241 

proved  the  country,  established  infant  schools, 
instructed  in  the  arts,  worked  with  the  natives, 
and,  as  a  pastor  and  teacher,  achieved  the  noblest 
triumphs  over  the  vices  and  habits  of  the  people. 
We  repeat,  it  was  his  godlike  love  and  kindness, 
united  with  his  perseverance,  that  wrought  all  these 
wonders,  and  earned  for  him  a  name  and  a  praise 
in  the  annals  of  the  world's  benefactors.  Remem- 
ber, these  were  not  the  refined  and  cultivated, 
among  whom  he  exercised  his  love,  but  a  half  bar- 
barous race  who  fell  before  its  all-subduing  power. 
He,  too,  I  am  happy  in  stating,  was  a  Universalist 
in  faith  and  practice. 

Take  yet  another  case.  I  refer  to  the  well 
known  history  of  Penn.  He  worked  with  these 
same  instruments  among  the  savages.  Here  were 
the  most  stern,  and  terrible,  and  ferocious  passions. 
And  they  were  all  conquered  by  love.  When  he 
came  to  this  country,  he  came  with  the  resolute 
purpose  of  putting  into  practical  operation  the  god- 
like rule  of  "  overcoming  evil  with  good."  And 
he  found  it  eminently  successful.  He  had  no  arms, 
no  weapons  of  blood,  no  coat  of  mail.  And  yet  he 
went  among  the  savages,  disarmed  them,  defeated 
them,  with  nothing  under  heaven  but  courage,  and 
good-will,  and  kindness  unto  all.  These  were  his 
arms ;  and  they  were  all  bright  and  gleaming  from 
the  armory  above.  At  this  late  day,  the  name  of 
Penn,  the  very  name  of  him,  will  cause  the  toma- 
hawk to  drop,  and  the  hatchet  to  be  buried  in  the 


242         UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

earth.  Where,  then,  are  your  uncultivated,  unre- 
fined, and  hardened  specimens  of  human  nature, 
whom  nothing  but  horrible ,  terror  will  subdue  ? 
'Tis  false.  It  contradicts  the  spirit  of  the  holy 
word,  and  doubts  the  very  power  by  which  God 
through  Christ  will  overcome  the  world. 

Look  yet  further  down  in  the  scale  of  moral 
abasement.  I  refer  to  criminals  —  inmates  of  the 
prison  —  those  whose  natural  passions  have  been 
nurtured  and  trained  in  the  school  of  vice,  and 
where  the  facilities  of  intellectual  attainment  have 
been  turned  to  unholy  use,  and  added  to  the  terrible 
momentum  which  they  have  acquired  in  their  on- 
ward course  to  ruin.  There  was  a  time  when 
these  hardened  sons  of  iniquity  were  deemed  al- 
together unmanageable  by  any  other  power  than 
chains,  and  bolts,  and  bars,  with  the  most  unrelent- 
ing and  unflinching  rigor  of  severity.  But,  now, 
experiment  has  taught  a  different  truth.  Facts 
added  to  facts  have  proved  that  criminals  are  yet 
men ;  that  they  have  hearts  like  other  men ;  that 
they  are  not  hopelessly  and  totally  depraved ;  that 
they  are  sensible  to  the  humane  offices  of  kindness, 
and  that  this,-  in  fact,  is  the  only  power  by  which 
they  can  be  brought  in  subjection  to  authority.  It  is 
said  of  Captain  Pillsbury,  of  the  Connecticut  state's 
prison,  that  "  his  moral  power  over  the  guilty  is  so 
remarkable,  that  prison  breakers  who  can  be  con- 
fined nowhere  else,  are  sent  to  him  to  be  charmed 
into  staying  their  time  out.  One,"  says  the  author 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST   PARTIALISM.         243 

of  the  Retrospect  of  Western  Travel,  "was  a 
gigantic  personage,  the  terror  of  the  country,  who 
had  plunged  deeper  and  deeper  into  crime,  for 
seventeen  years.  Captain  Pillsbury  told  him,  when 
he  came,  that  he  hoped  he  would  not  repeat  the 
attempts  to  escape  he  had  made  elsewhere.  '  It 
will  be  best,'  said  he,  '  that  you  and  I  should  treat 
each  other  as  well  as  we  can.  I  will  make  you 
as  comfortable  as  I  possibly  can,  and  I  shall  be 
anxious  to  be  your  friend  ;  and  I  hope  you  will  not 
get  me  into  difficulty  on  your  account.  There  is  a 
cell  intended  for  solitary  confinement,  but  we  have 
never  used  it,  and  I  should  be  very  sorry  ever  to 
have  to  turn  the  key  upon  any  body  in  it.  You 
may  range  the  place  as  freely  as  I  do  ;  if  you 
trust  me,  I  shall  trust  you.'  The  man  was  sulky, 
and  for  weeks  showed  only  very  gradual  symptoms 
of  softening  under  Captain  Pillsbury's  cheerful 
confidence.  At  length,  information  was  given  to 
the  captian  of  this  man's  intention  to  break  the 
prison.  The  captain  called  him  and  taxed  him 
with  it ;  the  man  preserved  a  gloomy  silence.  He 
was  told  that  it  was  now  necessary  for  him  to  be 
locked  up  in  the  solitary  cell,  and  desired  him  to 
follow  the  captain,  who  went  first,  carrying  a  lamp 
in  one  hand,  and  the  key  in  the  other.  In  the 
narrowest  part  of  the  passage,  the  captain,  who  is 
a  light,  small  man,  turned  round  and  looked  in  the 
face  of  the  stout  criminal.  c  Now,'  said  he,  '  I  ask 
whether  you  have  treated  me  as  I  deserved  ?  I 


244        UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM. 

have  done  every  thing  that  I  could  to  make  you 
comfortable ;  I  have  trusted  you,  and  you  have 
never  given  me  the  least  confidence  in  return,  and 
have  even  planned  to  get  me  into  difficulty.  Is  this 
kind  ?  And  yet  I  cannot  bear  to. lock  you  up.  If 
I  had  the  least  sign  that  you  cared  for  me  — '  *  * 
The  man  burst  into  tears.  '  Sir,'  said  he,  '  I  have 
been  a  devil  these  seventeen  years,  but  you  treat 
me  like  a  manS  '  Come,  let  us  go  back,'  said  the 
captain.  The  convict  had  the  free  range  of  the 
prison  as  before.  From  this  hour  he  began  to 
open  his  heart  to  the  captain,  and  cheerfully  ful- 
filled the  whole  time  of  his  imprisonment,  confiding 
to  his  friend,  as  they  arose,  all  impulses  to  violate 
his  trust,  and  all  facilities  for  doing  so  which  he 
imagined  he  saw. 

"  Another  case  was  of  a  criminal  of  the  same 
character,  who  went  so  far  as  to  make  an  actual 
attempt.  He  fell  and  hurt  his  ankle  very  much. 
The  captain  had  him  brought  in  and  laid  on  his 
bed,  and  had  the  ankle  attended  to,  every  one 
being  forbidden  to  speak  a  word  of  reproach  to  the 
sufferer.  The  man  was  sullen,  and  would  not  say 
whether  the  bandage  of  his  ankle  gave  him  pain  or 
not.  This  was  done  in  the  night,  and  every  one 
retired  when  this  was  done.  But  the  captain 
could  not  sleep.  He  was  distressed  at  the  attempt, 
and  thought  he  could  not  have  fully  done  his  duty 
to  any  man  who  would  make  it.  He  was  afraid 
the  man  was  in  great  pain.  He  arose  and  went 


UNIVERSALISM    AGAINST    PARTIALISM.         245 

with  a  lamp  to  the  cell.  The  prisoner's  face  was 
turned  to  the  wall,  and  his  eyes  closed,  but  the 
traces  of  suffering  were  not  to  be  mistaken.  The 
captain  loosened  and  replaced  the  bandage,  and 
went  for  his  own  pillow  to  rest  the  limb  upon,  the 
man  neither  speaking  nor  moving  all  the  time. 
Just  as  he  was  shutting  the  door,  the  prisoner 
started  up  and  called  him  back.  '  Stop,  sir.  Was 
it  ail  to  see  after  my  ankle  that  you  got  up  ? ' 
'  Yes,  it  was.  I  could  not  sleep  for  thinking  of 
you.'  '  And  yet  you  never  said  a  word  of  the  way 
I  have  used  you.'  c  I  do  feel  hurt  with  you  ;  but  I 
do  not  want  to  call  you  unkind  while  you  are  suf- 
fering as  you  now  are.'  The  man  was  in  an 
agony  of  shame  arid  grief.  All  he  could  ask  was 
to  be  trusted  again  when  he  should  recover.  He 
was  freely  trusted,  and  gave  his  generous  friend  no 
more  anxiety  on  his  behalf." 

I  might  multiply  similar  cases,  but  I  forbear. 
Those  we  have  cited  speak  a  language  of  their 
own.  Where  are  your  hardened  villains  whom 
nothing  but  horrible  terror  will  subdue  ?  Where 
are  they  ?  And  yet  this  love  and  this  kindness  are 
hardly  worth  the  mention  compared  with  that  of 
God.  And  this  is  the  infinite  love  we  preach.  Is 
it  licentious  ?  Is  it  dangerous  to  public  morals  ?  Is 
it  undermining  the  foundations  of  religion  ?  If  so, 
we  must  put  the  question,  What  are  they  doing, 
who  are  pursuing  exactly  a  contrary  course  ? 
Shame  on  the  man  who,  in  ignorance,  hurls  this 


246         UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

charge  against  the  truth  he  does  not  know,  but  may 
yet  feel !  Suppose  one  of  our  modern  ministers  of 
wrath  and  condemnation  had  gone  to  these  convicts 
in  the  prison.  Here  he  would  have  met  with  his 
hardened  villains,  who,  according  to  his  theory, 
need  some  mightier  power  than  that  we  preach. 
And  he  might  have  roused  his  eloquence  by  an 
appeal  to  the  thunderbolt  and  storm.  He  would 
have  uncapped  the  mouth  of  hell,  and  as  its  fabled 
horrors  rose  before  them,  would  have  bid  them 
fear,  and  tremble,  and  obey.  But  would  he  have 
succeeded  ?  No  !  not  theory,  but  facts,  speak  in  a 
tone  of  thunder,  no !  Then  they  are  false  minis- 
ters of  unprofitable  suffering.  They  may  be 
honest,  but  truth  will  have  it  that  they  have  mis- 
taken God,  and  mistaken  the  nature  of  man. 
Horrible  terror  will  not  subdue.  It  may  restrain, 
but  it  cannot  subdue ;  at  least,  not  in  the  sub- 
jection of  Christ.  It  is  neither  the  beginning  of 
wisdom  nor  the  end  of  it.  It  is  neither  the  gospel 
nor  the  law.  It  may  have  a  driving  influence,  but 
it  never  yet  constrained  one  soul  to  duty  or  to  God. 
It  cannot  be  that  it  is  the  truth  of  heaven.  Truth 
is  not  so  absolutely  worthless.  Nor  is  it  fitted  for 
the  abandoned  of  the  earth.  The  insane  and  luna- 
tic will  reject  it.  For  the  power  of  kindness,  and 
that  alone,  has  been  found  effectual  in  hospitals  of 
the  mind,  to  turn  the  almost  unearthly  rebellion  of 
the  maniac  into  obedience,  gentleness,  and  joy. 
Who  i$  this  power  of  terror  fitted  for,  —  this  threat 


UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST   PARTIALISM,         247 

of  never-ceasing  misery  ?  Fitted  for  the  fabulous 
monsters  of  a  heathen  world,  for  whom  alone  it  is 
ail  worthy ;  fitted  for  an  imagination  girt  about 
with  darkness,  and  rioting  in  fabled  pits  of  endle&s 
wo.  It  never  saved,  but  has  made  its  maniacs.  It 
never  softened,  but  has  hardened  many  hearts.  It 
never  caused,  but  has  prevented,  obedience  to  the 
great  commands  of  love.  True,  there  are  many 
worthy  who  assent  to  it ;  but  they  are  not  made  so 
by  the  theory  in  question.  We  may  safely  turn 
the  charge  upon  them  which  they  have  brought  to 
us.  The  fear  of  hell  has  made  "  some  melancholy, 
and  others  mad ; "  it  has  driven  men  to  many  per- 
formances of  virtue,  but  it  has  not  touched  their 
hearts  with  love.  It  is  therefore  good  for  nothing, 
even  should  'it  be  admitted  true  ;  for  the  very  obe- 
dience which  would  be  necessary  to  escape  it 
cannot  be  promoted  by  it !  But  it  is  not  true.  And 
time  is  rapidly  testifying  that  its  kingdom  is  num- 
bered, and  it  must  pass  away. 

To  conclude,  —  these  are  the  enginery  of  our 
moral  power :  a  filial  fear  of  God  OUT  Father,  and 
the  Father  of  mankind ;  God's  hatred  of  sin,  but 
intense  love  for  the  sinner.  Do  not  charge  with 
licentiousness  these  godlike  motives  to  obedience  : 
they  are  all-powerful  when  felt,  and  none  can 
sin  with  their  full  influence  on  him. 

I  bring  these  lectures  to  a  close,  I  have  spoken 
pointedly  and  plainly.  If  they  shall  be  the  means  of 
loosening  one  soul  from  the  holds  of  error,  of  turn- 


248         UNIVERSALISM   AGAINST    PARTIALISM. 

ing  one  to  truth  and  the  faithful  practice  of  its 
teachings,  I  shall  be  more  than  abundantly  reward- 
ed. May  God  grant  that  many  may  come,  from 
the  east  and  the  west,  from  the  north  and  the 
south,  and  sit  down  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 
And  not  till  the  universe  is  purified  of  evil,  or  the 
last  lost  soul  returns  in  holiness  to  God,  will  Christ 
our  Lord  be  satisfied,  and  the  victory  over  sin 
complete. 


APPENDIX. 


[In  anticipation  of  some  objections  which  may  be  urged 
against  the  doctrine  which  we  have  labored  to  illustrate  and 
establish,  and  which  have  not  been  noticed  in  the  foregoing 
lectures,  and  for  the  presentation  of  some  other  facts  for 
the  consideration  of  the  limitarian,  I  have  thought  proper  ta 
append  the  following.] 

I..  "  If  the  doctrine  of  universal  salvation  is 
true,  there  can  le  no  use  in  preaching  it"  I  must 
confess  that  this  objection  is  bo.th  flat  and  stale ; 
but  as  it  is  not  so  much  our  object  to  condemn 
folly,  as  to  enlighten  it,  we  must  give  it  a  passing 
notice.  It  is  frequently  the  last  objection  given  by 
an  opponent,  after  having  been  driven  the  rounds 
in  argument,  and  refuted,  point  after  point.  He 
will  then  look  you  wisely  in  the  face,  with  a 
"  Well,  friend,  if  your  doctrine  is  true,  there  is  no 
use  in  preaching  —  that 's  clear ;  for  if  all  men 
are  to  be  saved,  unconditionally,  what 's  the  use  of 
preaching?  "  And  then  he  takes  his  leave  of  you* 
22 


250  APPENDIX. 

unless,  perchance,   he  is  stopped  a  little   as   we 
stop  him  now,  to  reason  with  him,  and   to  state, — 

1.  That  this  is  no  objection  to  the   truth  of  the 
doctrine,  but  only  against  its  utility.     Arid  this  is 
the  reason  why  we  did  not  notice  it  in  our  discourse 
upon  the  objections  to  the  doctrine  itself.     Let  this 
be  remembered  first,  and, — • 

2.  The   objection  destroys  itself.      It  is  based 
upon   the   supposition   that   the  doctrine   may   be 
TRUE.      If  it   is   true,  that  is  reason  enough  for 
preaching  it.     Would  the  objector  have  us  preach 
a  falsehood,  even  though  it  might  appear  of  some 
utility?     No  indeed.     If,  then, our  doctrine  is  true, 
that  is  the  very  reason  why  we  should  preach  it. 

3.  The  objection  also  supposes  that  the  only  use 
of  preaching  is  to  save  men  from  an  endless  hell. 
And  this,  in  fact,  is  the  great  object  of  all  limita- 
rian  preaching.     Now,  if  there  were  no  other  sal- 
vation than  this,  and  all  mankind  were  to  be  uncon- 
ditionally saved  from  this,  then,  we  confess,  there 
would    be  no  use   in  our  preaching.     We  might 
then  institute  the  following  argument :    there  is  no 
other   salvation   than    deliverance  from  an  endless 
hell ;    all  mankind  must  experience  this  salvation  ; 
therefore,  there  is  no  use  in  our  preaching  to  save 
them. 

But  suppose  there  happened  to  be  another  salva- 
tion. Suppose  that  Christ  received  the  "  name  of 
Jesus,  because  he  should  save  his  people  from 
their  sins  ; "  suppose  that  he  was  "  sent  to  bless  us, 


APPENDIX.  251 

in  turning  away  every  one  of  us  from  our  iniqui- 
ties ; "  suppose  it  was  to  "  open  our  eyes,  and  to 
turn  us  from  darkness  unto  light,  and  from  the 
power  of  Satan  unto  God,  that  we  might  receive 
forgiveness  of  sins,  and  an  inheritance  among  them 
which  are  sanctified  by  faith."  There  would  then, 
manifestly,  be  an  appearance  of  wisdom  in  the 
preaching  of  the  cross,  and  in  bringing  home  to 
men's  business  and  bosoms  matters  worthy  of 
their  grave  attention.  , 

Now  this  happens  to  be  the  case.  We  perceive 
that  men  are  in  the  way  of  sin,  of  darkness,  and  of 
unbelief.  We  preach  to  open  their  eyes,  and  turn 
them  to  the  light.  We  fear  no  endless  hell,  but 
we  recognize  a  high  and  glorious  salvation,  —  one 
which,  we  apprehend,  fully  justifies  the  use  of  the 
term,  notwithstanding  all  the  felt  unmeaningness 
which,  in  our  use  of  it,  is  felt  by  many  to  hang 
around  it.  It  is,  emphatically,  to  SAVE  MANKIND 
that  we  preach  the  sentiments  of  our  faith.  And 
the  Saviour  himself  came  "  to  seek  and  to  save 
those  who  were  lost,"  not  those  who  should  be  lost. 
We  view  the  world,  or  a  -great  part  of  it,  in  a  lost 
condition.  They  are  lost  to  truth,  they  are  lost  to 
virtue,  they  are  lost  to  faith  and  hope,  they  are 
lost  to  happiness,  they  are  lost  from  their  Father's 
house, —  they  are  lost,  wofully  lost,  but  not  forever; 
and  it  is  by  the  "  foolishness  of  preaching  "  that 
we  expect  to  save  them.  In  the  world's  eye  it  is 
foolishness,  but  to  those  who  have  tasted  of  the 


252  APPENDIX. 

good  word  of  God,  and  the  powers  of  the  world  to 
come,  the  gospel  we  preach  is  the  power  of  God, 
and  the  wisdom  of  God,  to  the  salvation  of  every 
true  believer. 

Go,  my  friends,  and, contrast  our  condition  with 
the  condition  of  the  heathen^  if  you  want  to  know 
the  utility  of  preaching,  abstracted  from  the  power 
of  an  endless  hell.  See  them  sunk  in  the  grossest 
degradation,  idolatry,  sensuality,  and  ignorance  ; 
"  without  natural  affection,  implacable,  unmerci- 
ful," and  living  in  darkness  that  may  almost  be 
felt.  Contrast  their  uncivilized  and  degraded  state 
with  the  condition  of  those  who  have  received  the 
light  and  knowledge  of  God  in  the  gospel  of  his 
Son,  and  say  then,  we  Beseech  you,  apart  from 
all  consideration  of  exposure  to  an  endless  hell, 
whether  a  great  and  special  salvation  hath  not  vis- 
ited us.  This  is  the  salvation  we  preach.  We 
seek  to  save  men  from  ignorance,  —  ignorance  of 
God  and  his  government ;  from  sin  and  its  bitter 
consequences ;  from  unbelief,  and  sorrow,  and  all 
the  evils  attendant  upon  mortal  and  imperfect  man, 
which  the  gospel  can  alteviate  or  remove  away 
forever.  If  our  doctrine  is  true  then,  there  is  some 
use  in  preaching  it. 

We  preach  to  make  men  letter.  And  as  to  the 
power  of  our  faith  to  do  this,  1  refer  to  the  closing 
lecture  of  the  series,  which,  perhaps,  the  reader 
has  just  perused.  We  aim  to  inspire  the  virtuous 
will,  the  holy  resolution,  and  to  impel  the  crea- 


APPENDIX.  253 

ture  to  worship  his  Creator  from  thankfulness  of 
heart.  And  is  it  foolishness  in  the  eye  of  God  ? 
Is  it  vain  and  useless  unto  man  ?  It  may  be  fool- 
ishness to  some,  but  they  should  not  forget  that,  in 
days  long  past,  when  the  world  in  wisdom  towered 
high  in  its  own  estimation,  "  it  pleased  God,  by  the 
FOOLISHNESS  OF  PREACHING,  to  save  them  that  be- 
lieve." And  may  not  the  same  salvation  go  forth 
now  ?  Yes,  and  it  will  go  forth,  till  the  world  is 
delivered  from  its  folly,  —  till  all  obstacles  are 
moved  out  of  the  way,  -*-  till  u  every  valley  shall 
be  filled,  and  every  mountain  and  hill  shall  be 
brought  low ;  and  the  crooked  shall  be  made 
straight,  and  the  rough  ways  shall  be  made  smooth; 
and  all  flesh  shall  see  the  salvation  of  God." 

Again,  we  must  now  tell  the  objector  that  one 
very  great  use  in  preaching  our  faith  is,  to  save 
mankind  from  the  degrading  and  dishonorable  con- 
ceptions which  they  have  formed  of  Him  who  is 
the  Father  of  all  mercies.  They  have  dishonored 
God  by  the  ascription  of  a  character  that  would 
disgrace  the  veriest  tyrant  upon  earth.  They  have 
cast  a  cloud  of  blackness  over  all  his  government. 
There  is  not  one  of  them  who,  if  he  had  the  power, 
would  not  do  letter,  infinitely  better,  for  man- 
kind than  they  allow  their  God  will  do.  Thus 
they  exalt  their  own  benevolence  above  that  of  the 
Almighty,  and  impiously  revile  his  character  with 
blasphemies  too  horrible  to  utter.  This  is  plain, 
but  it  is  absolutely  true.  I  do  not  say  they  do  it 
22* 


254  APPENDIX. 

intentionally ;  but  they  do  it  in  ignorance  of  his 
adorable  nature.  And  if  I  wanted  to  reproach  my 
God,  and  to  conjure  up  the  foulest  imaginable  im- 
piety, I  would  not,  with  horrid  oaths,  deny  him ; 
but  I  would  say,  in  daring  coolness,  that  he  would 
inflict  upon  his  helpless  creatures,  who  owe  their 
being  to  him,  unintermitted  and  interminable  tor- 
merit.  This  I  would  do ;  and  I  should  have  no 
doubt  that  I  had  done  the  worst  I  could  do.  I 
know  I  am  plain,  and  I  mean  to  be  plain  on  a 
subject  of  this  nature :  I  would  say  it,  did  I  die 
while  my  pen  quivered  in  my  hand. 

Now,  my  friend,  it  is  to  save  mankind  from  such 
dishonorable  views  of  God  that  we  preach  our 
sentiments.  And  we  will  preach  them  till  knowl- 
edge runs  to  and  fro,  and  his  name  is  glorified 
throughout  the  earth. 

We  have  now  one  question  to  ask  concerning 
the  morals  of  this  theory,  and  shall  then  dismiss 
the  subject.  Would  those  who  bring  the  objection 
we  are  noticing  be  willing  to  acknowledge  that, 
were  it  not  for  saving  men  from  an  endless  hell, 
all  their  preaching  and  all  they  could  preach 
would  be  foolishness  ?  Then  ENDLESS  DAMNATION 
is  the  sum  total  of  their  wisdom !  And,  without 
this,  they  could  not  lift  a  finger  to  point  to  God,  to 
Christ  crucified,  to  virtue,  or  to  happiness  !  And 
we  believe  this  is  not  a  great  ways  from  the  truth 
of  the  matter  ! 

II.  "  Universalism  BIAY  prove  false.     We  there- 


APPENDIX.  255 

fore  will  not  embrace  it;  for,  if  we  did,  we  should 
give  up  two  chances  for  one.  If  our  doctrine 
proves  false,  yours  will  take  us  in ;  but  if  yours 
should  happen  to  prove  false,  you  have  no  security. 
We  have  two  chances,  and  we  will  keep  upon  the 
safest  side."  So,  friend,  you  are  determined  to 
disbelieve,  in  spite  of  evidence.  You  will  not 
investigate,  you  will  not  "  examine  yourself  wheth- 
er you  be  in  the  faith,"  for  fear  you  may  be  found 
not  in  it !  that  is,  for  fear  you  shall  feel  compelled, 
by  evidence,  to  embrace  a  doctrine  which,  though 
truer,  might  not  be  so  safe !  This  is  wisdom  — 
this  is  principle  —  this  is  noble  ! 

Is  not  the  side  of  truth  unquestionably  the  safe 
side  ?  Examine,  then  ;  and  if  you  be  convinced 
of  error,  renounce  it  immediately,  and  rest  assured 
there  is  nothing  safer  than  the  truth. 

But  it  may  prove  false.  What  then  ?  Are  you 
any  more  in  danger  by  being  honestly  and  consci- 
entiously in  error,  —  by  believing  a  doctrine  which 
you  cannot  help  believing,  from  the  force  of  evi- 
dence, and  rejecting  one  which  you  were  obliged 
to  reject,  on  account  of  its  manifest  absurdity? 
Rest  assured,  if  there  is  any  absolute  sin  here,  it 
is  in  striving  to  countenance  and  keep  in  favor 
with  a  doctrine  which  your  understanding  rejected, 
and  your  very  soul  abhorred.  I  repeat,  if  there  is 
any  sin  here,  and  danger  on  that  account,  it  is  not 
in  rejecting  a  doctrine  which  you  felt  obliged  to 
reject,  but  rather  in  striving  to  favor  one  which 


256  APPENDIX. 

you  could  not  find  sufficient  evidence  to  sustain, 
for  the  miserable  consideration  that  it  might  be 
more  safe.  Remember  this. 

But  let  us  see  if  it  really  would  be  more  safe,  or 
if  you  would  have  one  more  chance  by  believing 
in  the  opposite  doctrine.  What  does  this  doctrine 
teach  ?  That,  from  all  past  eternity,  God  has 
elected  some  to  everlasting  life,  and  reprobated 
others  to  everlasting  death ;  that  those  thus  elected 
and  reprobated  are  made  so,  as  the  Confession  of 
Faith  says,  "  without  any  foresight  of  faith  or  good 
works,  or  any  other  thing  in  the  creature  as  condi- 
tions or  causes  moving  him  thereto  ; "  and  that  the 
number  "  thus  predestinated  and  foreordained  is  so 
certain,  that  it  cannot  be  either  increased  or  dimin- 
ished." What  a  glorious  CHANCE  here  is  !  If  this 
doctrine  be  true,  and  the  main  salvation  is  deliver- 
ance from  an  endless  hell,  it  is  certainly  foolish  to 
preach  it.  What  think,  friend,  of  two  chances 
here.  You  might  as  well  be  a  Universalist  as  not, 
if  this  is  true,  and  despite  of  every  danger.  The 
fact  is,  there  is  no  chance  about  it ;  for  it  is  all 
absolute  and  "particular"  "predestination"  and 
"  design,"  "  without  any  foresight  of  faith  or  good 
works."  So,  Universalist  or  Partialist,  if  you  are 
one  of  the  elect,  you  will  be  saved ;  and  if  not, 
you  will  be  damned,  in  spite  of  faith. 

But,  says  the  reader,  this  is  an  old-fashioned 
doctrine,  and  universally  abandoned  now.  I  beg 
the  reader's  pardon ;  I  have  heard  it  preached 


APPENDIX-  257 

myself,  within  three  months,  from  a  pulpit  in  this 
town  —  this  veritable  Newburyport.  Remember 
that.  It  was  preached  to  more  than  two  thousand 
people. 

But  we  are  willing  to  take  the  objector  on  the 
other  ground,  —  to  admit  that  our  eternal  destiny 
is  placed  at  our  own  disposal.  And  what  then? 
Can  faith  save  ye  ?  Or  can  honest,  conscientious 
opinion,  made  up  from  careful  examination  of  the 
Bible,  and  the  use  of  all  the  helps  within  your 
aid,  —  can  such  honesty  and  sincerity  damn  you 
through  the  ages  of  eternity  ?  I  pity  the  man 
who  is  so  far  lost  in  bigotry  as  this.  But  if  faith 
cannot  save  ye,  can  works  ?  Admit  that  they  can. 
Admit  that  a  good  character  is  requisite  for  the 
attainment  of  salvation  ;  or,  rather,  that  a  good 
character  is  salvation  itself.  And  what  then  ? 
Does  the  doctrine  of  endless  damnation  afford  two 
chances  here  ?  I  trow  not.  So  far  as  the  first 
and  second  commands  are  concerned,  we  have 
already  proved  it  "  good  for  nothing ; "  yea,  worse 
than  useless.  I  refer  to  the  closing  lecture  of  the 
series,  where  it  has  been  amply  demonstrated  that 
the  system  of  universal  grace  is  all-sufficient  in 
moral  power ;  and  it  only  needs  to  be  reduced  to 
practice,  to  keep  the  believer  in  the  way  of  all  the 
commandments  of  God.  On  the  contrary,  reduce 
partialism  to  practice,  imitate  its  God  of  cruelty, 
enact  the  scenes  on  earth  that  God,  it  is  said,  will 
enact  in  eternity,  and  crime  and  cruelty  would 


258  APPENDIX. 

overspread  the  earth.  We  do  not  say  that  such  is 
the  character  of  the  believers  in  this  doctrine  gen- 
erally :  we  rejoice  that  it  is  not  reduced  to  actual, 
universal  practice.  But  we  do  say  that  such  has 
been  its  tendency  ;  that  the  bloody  inquisition,  and 
other  enormities,  owe  their  origin  to  the  doctrine 
of  endless  torment ;  and,  in  every  case,  so  far  as  it 
becomes  operative  in  inducing  a  moral  action  re- 
lated to  the  two  commandments,  it  does  prevent 
obedience,  harden  the  heart,  create  antipathy  to 
God,  arid  destroy  a  Christian  sympathy  for  man. 
These  are  facts  which  cannot  be  controverted.  So 
far  as  chance  is  concerned,  then,  whether  by  faith 
or  works,  or  both,  the  substantial,  enlightened, 
practical  believer  in  the  universality  and  efficiency 
of  God's  grace  and  love  is  still  upon  the  safest 
side.  I  pray  that  he  may  remain  there  ;  and  "not 
unto  us,  O  Lord,  not  unto  us,  but  unto  thy  name, 
give  glory." 

III.  It  is  objected  to  the  system  of  our  theology, 
to  that  part  of  it  which  relates  to  punishment,  that 
it  destroys  the  Christian  doctrine  of  forgiveness, 
by  teaching  a  full  and  complete  punishment  for 
every  sin.  This  objection  is  founded  on  one 
grand  theological  mistake.  You  cannot  point  to  a 
single  passage  in  the  Bible  which  speaks  of  for- 
giveness of  punishment.  In  Exodus  xxxiv.  6,  7, 
the  character  of  God  is  proclaimed  in  this  way  : 
"  The  Lord  God,  merciful  and  gracious,  forgiving 
iniquity,  transgression  and  sin,  and  that  will  by  no 


APPENDIX.  259 

means  clear  the  guilty  "  Here  we  find  that  sin 
may  be  forgiven,  that  is,  blotted  out,  or  remitted, 
while  their  punishment  they  could  not  flee  from. 
Again,  in  Psalm  xcix.  8,  "  Thou  wast  a  God  who 
forgavest  them,  though  thou  tookest  vengeance  of 
their  inventions"  Here,  also,  we  learn  that  God 
could  forgive  their  sins,  that  is,  cleanse  them  from 
iniquity,  at  the  same  time  that  he  took  vengeance 
for  them.  Also  in  Isaiah  xl.  1,2,  "Comfort  ye, 
comfort  ye  my  people,  saith  your  God.  Speak  ye 
comfortably  to  Jerusalem,  and  cry  unto  her,  that 
her  warfare  is  accomplished,  that  her  iniquity  is 
pardoned ;  for  she  hath  received  of  the  Lortfs 
hand  double  for  all  her  sins."  Here  is  an  em- 
phatic testimony,  that  sin  may  be  adequately  pun- 
ished, and  yet  forgiven  too.  After  the  punishment 
is  inflicted,  the  sin  may  be  forgiven,  If  we  should 
ask  some  Christians  how  this  could  be,  they  would 
ridicule  the  idea.  The  reason  would  be,  they 
would  be  all  the  time  thinking  of  forgiveness  of 
punishment.  And  the  forgiveness  which  our 
Christian  clergy  preach  is  generally  represented, 
and  generally  understood,  to  be  the  forgiveness  or 
remission  of  hell  torments.  But  the  Bible  knows 
nothing  about  such  a  doctrine.  It  never  teaches 
the  forgiveness  or  remission  of  punishment  for  sins 
committed.  It  is  the  forgiveness  of  sins ;  by 
which  is  understood,  the  blotting  out,  or  cleansing 
from,  after  due  justice  is  administered.  You  see, 
then,  that  our  system  of  theology  does  not  destroy 


260  APPENDIX. 

the  Christian  doctrine  of  forgiveness,  but  maintains 
it.  It  only  destroys  the  gross  error  of  forgiveness 
of  punishment.  "  He  that  doeth  wrong  shall  re- 
ceive for  the  wrong  which  he  hath  done  ;  and 
there  is  no  respect  of  persons."  (CoL  iii.  25.) 

In  human  governments  there  is  indeed  such  a 
ihing  as  the  power  of  pardon,  —  pardon  of  punish- 
ment. But  this  is  owing  to  the  imperfection  of  the 
government.  Mistakes  frequently  occur  with  hu- 
man judges,  with  regard  to  the  degree  of  guilt 
which  a  criminal  is  involved  in,  arid  also  with 
regard  to  the  question  of  guilty  or  not  guilty.  And, 
under  such  circumstances,  a  pardon  is  granted,  by 
which  the  punishment  is  remitted.  But  no  such 
mistakes  occur  in  the  government  of  God,  He 
readeth  the  secrets  of  the  heart.  He  is  intimately 
acquainted  with  all  the  facts  in  the  case,  can  insti- 
tute no  punishment  but  what  is  just  to  be  adminis- 
tered ;  and,  under  such  a  government,  why  should 
the  punishment  be  remitted  for  a  sin  committed 
against  full  light  and  knowledge  ?  Such  forgive- 
ness would  be  manifestly  unjust.  And  God  has 
never  declared  it  to  us.  He  is  the  gracious  forgiver 
of  our  sins ;  and  sin  may  be  forgiven,  after  the  just 
punishment  is  administered  ;  that  is,  "  remembered 
no  more  against  us."  Universalists,  then,  so  far 
from  destroying,  are  the  only  Christians  who 
maintain,  the  Christian  doctrine  of  forgiveness ;  for 
every  other  sect  perpetuates  the  sin  through  all 
eternity. 


APPENDIX.  261 

IV.  It  is  objected,  also,  that  our  system  renders 
unavailing  the  act  of  repentance.  It  does  not.  It 
only  declares  that  repentance  will  not  absolve  from 
the  punishment  of  sins  committed.  But  if  repent- 
ance cannot  save  us  from  the  just  punishment  of 
our  sins,  it  may  be  asked,  of  what  avail  is  it  ?  In 
answer  to  this  question,  let  it  be  observed  how 
strangely  perverted  men's  judgments  are  upon 
this  subject,  by  a  blind  adherance  to  a  favorite 
creed.  Repentance  has  so  long  been  represented 
as  an  exercise  of  the  mind  which  will  free  us  from 
the  punishment  of  sins  committed,  which  other- 
wise would  have  been  inflicted,  that  it  is  deemed 
of  no  use  at  all  if  it  cannot  have  this  effect* 
What  a  blindness  to  all  plain  consequences  is  this  ! 
By  your  permission,  I  will  illustrate  this  subject  by 
an  apt,  though  homely  comparison,  A  man  in 
trade,  then,  makes  a  bad  bargain.  He  repents  of 
it.  Now  of  what  use  is  his  repentance  ?  Does  it 
help  him  out  of  his  present  difficulty  ?  Does  it 
enable  him  to  escape  from  the  loss  he  has  sus- 
tained ?  No.  He  has  got  to  suffer  the  evil  of  his 
own  imprudence,  and  there  is  no  help  for  him*  Of 
what  use,  then,  is  his  repentance  ?  Why,  it  will 
learn  him  to  look  out  better  next  time.  That  is 
the  use  of  it.  Just  so,  we  apprehend,  are  the  good 
consequences  of  gospel  repentance.  It  never  will 
atone  for  what  is  past.  If  an  individual  sins,  he 
has  got  to  suffer  for  it  the  whole  penalty  of  the 
law.  There  is  no  remedy  for  him*  You,  then, 
23 


262  APPENDIX. 

who  hold  to  endless  punishment,  beware !  He 
may  repent  in  dust  and  ashes,  but  this  will  never 
satisfy  justice  for  the  sin  he  has  committed.  Why 
should  it?  He  committed  the  sin  against  a  full 
knowledge  of  the  wrong.  He  knew  the  law ;  he 
knew  he  should  violate  it  if  he  thus  conducted ; 
still,  he  hesitates  not ;  he  goes  deliberately  at  work, 
and  dares  an  open  transgression.  Under  these 
circumstances,  why  should  he  go  unpunished  ? 
Why  should  his  repentance  afterwards  clear  him 
from  a  wilful  violation  of  a  known  law  of  God  ? 
You  may  talk  about  sorrow,  and  contrition,  but  this 
is  nothing  to  the  purpose.  He  had  neither  sorrow 
nor  contrition  when  he  ventured  to  rebel.  With 
daring  impiety,  with  a  full  knowledge  of  the  law 
and  its  requirements,  he  goes  about,  despite  of  it 
all,  and  hardily  lifts  his  hand  against  the  almighty 
Ruler,  in  defiance  of  him  !  Now,  afterward,  let 
him  sorrow  and  repent ;  but  this  cannot  atone  for 
high-handed  crime  against  full  light  and  knowledge. 
And  we  may  depend  upon  it,  that  God,  "  who  will 
by  no  means  clear  the  guilty,"  will  never  let  us 
off  upon  such  easy  terms  as  popular  repentance. 
This  sweeping  expression,  u  no  means,"  includes, 
or  rather  excludes,  repentance  and  every  thing 
else. 

Let  it  not  be  said  that  Christ  has  borne  the  in- 
finite penalty  for  us ;  and  that,  therefore,  God  can 
now  free  us  by  repentance  and  faith.  For,  not- 
withstanding this,  the  penalty,  we  are  told,  must  be 


APPENDIX.  263 

inflicted  upon  MS,  but  repentance  will  clear  us! 
The  argument,  then,  holds  good  against  the  whole 
system  of  popular  penalty,  repentance,  and  for- 
giveness. 

But  what,  then,  is  the  use  of  repenting  ?  Is  it 
of  no  use  ?  Most  assuredly  it  is.  It  is  just  as  use- 
ful and  necessary  as  the  repentance  of  that  man 
who  made  a  bad  bargain.  It  will  learn  us  better 
for  the  future.  This  is  the  true  use  of  repentance. 
It  never  can  atone  for  what  is  past,  but  it  will  pre- 
vent future  transgression,  and  consequent  punish- 
ment for  those  future  sins  ;  for,  if  we  no  more  trans- 
gress, we  shall,  of  course,  no  more  be  punished. 
The  punishment  of  sin  is  called  the  wages  of  it. 
"  The  wages  of  sin  is  death."  The  term  wages 
comes  from  a  word  which  signified  the  daily  pay 
of  a  Roman  soldier.  Death,  then,  (not  eternal 
death,  which  phrase  is  not  in  the  Bible,)  is  the  pay, 
the  wages  of  sin.  It  is  hardly  earned  in  the  labor 
of  iniquity.  Now  the  great  Lawgiver  never  had 
the  character  of  refusing  to  pay  laborers  their 
wages.  No :  "  Vengeance  is  mine  ;  I  will  repay, 
saith  the  Lord."  We  may  repent,  and  this  will  save 
us  from  future  transgression  and  consequent  punish- 
ment ;  but  surely,  by  the  act  of  our  repentance, 
God  will  not  prove  so  absolutely  unjust  as  to  with- 
hold the  hard  earned  wages  of  his  subjects.  We 
might  wish  to  be  excused  from  receiving  such  pay, 
but  we  should  never  have  engaged  to  labor  for  it. 
The  great  Lawgiver  must  fulfil  his  part,  and 


264  APPENDIX. 

render  unto  every  one  his  due,  Universalists, 
then,  do  not  deny  the  necessity  of  repentance : 
they  only  deny  one  of  its  supposed,  but  erroneous 
and  unjust,  consequences. 

V.  It  is  furthermore  said,  that  we  deny  the 
necessity  of  the  new  birth.  We  do  not.  We  only 
deny  that  our  eternal  destiny  hereafter  is  to  depend 
upon  our  characters  here.  A  more  monstrous  idea 
could  not  be  conceived,  upon  the  subject  of  our 
salvation.  We  believe  in  God,  "  who  hath  saved 
us,  and  called  us  with  a  holy  calling,  not  according 
to  our  works,  but  according  to  his  own  purpose  and 
grace,  which  was  given  us  in  Christ  Jesus,  before 
the  world  began."  (2  Tim.  i.  9.)  We  believe,  also, 
that  "  Except  a  man  be  born  again,  he  cannot  see 
the  kingdom  of  God."  And  none  shall  say  "  Lo 
here !  or  lo  there !  for,  behold,  the  kingdom  of 
God  is  within  you."  It  is  u  not  meat  and  drink  ; 
but  righteousness  and  peace,  and  joy  in  the  Holy 
Ghost," 


APPENDIX.  265 


FACTS  FOR  LIMITARIANS. 

I.  IT  is  a  singular  fact  that  St.  Paul,  from  all 
that  appears  in  the  whole  history  of  his  thirty  years* 
preaching,  did  not  once  use  the  term  hell  to  a  soli- 
tary individual,  saint  or  sinner.     To  be  sure,  he 
made  use  of  certain  other  expressions  which  are 
usually  considered,  in  our  day,  as  relating  to  end- 
less punishment ;  but  if  hell,  as  commonly  under- 
stood, is  the  place  of  punishment,  it  is  a  singular 
and  wonderful  fact  that  Paul  the  apostle,  and  the 
chiefest  of  all  the  apostles,  never  once  uttered  it  to 
an  individual !     Query.  What  would  be  thought  of 
a  minister  in  our  day,  who  should  preach  thirty 
years,   and   never    once    threaten   his   impenitent 
hearers  with  the  punishment  of  hell  ?     Answer  me 
that.     What  would  be  thought  of  him  ? 

II.  It   is   also   a   singular  fact  that   self-styled 
"  Orthodoxy  "    is    not   now    what    it    was    fifty 
years  ago.     Then  it  was  absolute  and  particular 
election  and  reprobation  :  now  it  is,  quite  generally, 
the  offer  of  salvation  unto  all  mankind.     Then  it 
was  infant  damnation:  now  it  is,  quite  generally, 
salvation  for  infants  by  the  death  of  Christ.     Then 
it  was  original,  innate,  as  well  as  total  depravity  : 
now  it  is  getting  to  be  infant  purity  until  the  age  of 
accountability.     Then  it  was  a  hell  of  literal,  ele- 


266  APPENDIX. 

mentary  fire  :  now  it  is  a  hell  of  conscience.  Then 
it  was  one  in  a  thousand  saved  :  now  it  is  by 
many,  one  in  a  thousand  damned.  Query  :  if  this 
improvement  goes  on  for  fifty  years  hence,  as  fast 
as  it  has  for  fifty  years  past,  how  near  will  "  Or- 
thodoxy "  be  to  destruction  then  ? 

III.  It  is  another  singular  fact,  with  the  mention 
of  which  we  shall  close  our  work,  that  all  that  is 
wanted  to  exterminate  the  doctrine  of  endless  tor- 
ment from  the  church  is  to  preach  it  faithfully. 
"  What !  "  says  the  reader,  "  do  you  mean  to  bring 
the  charge  of  unfaithfulness  against  the  whole  body 
of  the  preachers  of  this  faith  ?  "  We  mean  no 
more  than  just  what  truth  compels  us  to  affirm. 
We  would  not,  certainly,  thus  represent  the 
character  of  this  whole  ministry,  had  we'  not  a 
sufficient  reason ;  nor  do  we  mean  to  say  aught 
against  their  piety.  But  they  know  very  well  that, 
from  motives  which  they  know  well  enough  how 
to  appreciate,  they  are  absolutely  afraid  to  preach 
their  doctrine  fully  and  faithfully  to  a  dying  world. 
Start  not,  reader,  for  it  is  a  solemn  fact.  You  will 
now  suspend  all  judgment  upon  the  seeming  bold- 
ness of  this  accusation,  till  the  subject  is  placed  in 
its  true  light  before  you. 

Think,  in  the  first  place,  of  the  abomination 
which  these  men  preach.  What  imagination 
can  conceive  it  ?  We  have  attempted  to  describe 
something  of  its  horrors  and  enormities  in  the 
course  of  our  lectures,  but  all  attempts  at  de- 


APPENDIX.  267 

scription  only  show  the  utter  poverty  of  language. 
I  shall  therefore  now  pass  it  over  in  silence,  as 
something  too  horrid  to  conceive,  too  dreadful  to 
relate,  and  too  tremendous  to  reflect  upon.  Yet, 
if  it  is  a  truth,  with  what  power  ought  it  to  be  pre- 
sented to  the  sinner's  mind!  And  yet  let  us 
notice  the  reserve,  and  the  delicacy,  and  the  false 
refinement  which  seems  to  think  hell  a  word  "  too 
harsh  for  ears  polite."  To  be  sure,  all  its  public 
advocates  are  not  of  this  retiring  character.  But 
if  the  abomination  in  question  is  true,  what  else 
should  a  Christian  minister  dwell  upon  ?  If  we  do 
indeed  allow  him  time  for  the  inculcation  and 
enforcement  of  other  doctrines  and  precepts,  yet 
"  hell  arid  damnation  "  should  be  the  all-engrossing 
theme,  —  ENDLESS  damnation  and  ENDLESS  incon- 
ceivable wrath.  But  what  is  the  case  ?  We  do 
indeed  hear  them  occasionally  uttering  the  threat- 
enings  of  "  undying  pains "  —  of  "  everlasting 
wo  "  —  of  "  endless  misery."  We  hear  them 
talk,  in  coolness,  of  that  "  sad  world,"  where 
"  hope  never  comes,  that  comes  to  all."  We  hear 
of  "  groans  "  and  "  tears  "  and  "  never-dying 
pangs ; "  and,  sometimes,  a  spirit  more  daring 
than  the  rest  will  attempt  a  minute  and  brief  de- 
scription of  the  torments  which  await  the  wicked. 
But,  in  the  name  of  justice  and  humanity,  I  ask, 
what  is  all  this  compared  with  what  might  and 
ought  to  be  given,  if  true,  and  still  fall  infinitely 
short  of  the  reality  ?  I  once  heard  a  minister  of 


268  APPENDIX. 

the  gospel  (?)  assign  a  reason  why  this  doctrine  was 
not  more  faithfully  portrayed  to  perishing  sinners, 
in  accordance  with  its  tremendous  nature.  "  Be- 
cause," said  he  to  his  flock,  "it  is  as  unpleasant  to 
the  speaker  as  to  the  hearer."  Indeed  !  A  faith- 
ful servant  this!  What!  a  minister  of  the  gos- 
pel consult  his  own  personal  pleasure,  and  the 
pleasure  of  his  hearers  too,  rather  than  their  safety, 
when  exposed  to  such  a  doom  ?  No,  no,  this  is 
not  the  reason.  The  reason  is,  the  common  sense 
and  moral  convictions  of  the  people  will  not  hear 
it  !  That  is  the  reason,  and  the  preachers  of 
this  doctrine  KNOW  it ;  and,  to  keep  themselves  in 
station,  and  keep  alive  the  dreadful  doctrine,  they 
are  obliged  to  cover  it  up,  —  to  soften  it  down, — 
to  be  cautious  about  offending,  —  offending  men  by 
proclaiming  the  most  important  truth  of  God  ! 
They  are  obliged  to  be  reserved, —  to  keep  cool,— 
to  preach  but  a  little  of  what  is  deemed  a  soul- 
saving  truth  !  Brother  preacher,  is  not  this  a  fact  ? 
Can  you  put  your  hand  upon  your  heart,  and  say 
it  is  not  a  fact?  But  we  tell  you,  if  it  is  true, 
preach  it.  There  is  only  one  thing  for  you  to  do, 
— preach  it.  Mind  not  the  pleasure  of  your  hear- 
ers, when  their  endless  destiny  is  at  stake.  Preach 
your  doctrine.  If  it  is  true,  it  is  tremendously 
true ;  and  you  had  better  preach  it.  Be  faithful, 
and  tire  not  in  the  work.  Take  up  the  subject 
from  Sabbath  to  Sabbath,  —  sound  it  dreadfully 
around,  — bring  it  to  bear  upon  the  congregation 


APPENDIX.  269 

with  all  the  powers  and  terrors  of  mortal  eloquence, 
—  make  them  quail  and  tremble  before  it,  • —  suffer 
them  not  to  sleep  with  the  whole  battery  of  endless 
damnation  discharged  upon  their  heads,  —  lift  up 
thy  voice  like  a  trumpet,  —  sound  the  alarm  !  wo  ! 
misery  !  lamentation  !  horror  !  —  shrink  not  from 
duty, —  let  it  come, —  be  not  a  man-pleaser, —  shun 
not  to  "  declare  the  whole  counsel  of  God, "  — 
preach,  O  preach,  from  the  dawning  to  the  dying 
light,  until  the  truth  is  felt,  and  stout  hearts  begin 
to  shake  with  fear,  and  cry  out  in  good  earnest, 
**  What  shall  I  do  to  be  saved  ?  " 

You  dare  not  preach  thus  faithfully  !  Your  con- 
gregations would  not  bear  it ;  and,  ere  long,  you 
would  have  nothing  left  but  empty  seats  and  bare 
walls  to  e<$ho  back  the  dolorous  cry  of  boundless, 
fathomless,  and  endless  wo.  You  know  this  to  be 
a  truth.  '"  You  cannot  deny  it ! 

And  now  to  the  public  I  appeal,  if  that  can  be  a 
truth  which  owes  its  very  existence  to  a  reserve  in 
its  advocates  in  the  promulgation  of  it.  Can  that 
be  a  truth  which,  if  preached  boldly,  faithfully  and 
fully,  as  it  ought  to  be  preached,  if  true,  would 
bring  destruction  to  itself?  Can  that  be  truth 
which  would  need  no  opposition,  but  would,  by 
faithful  proclamation,  ere  long  die  a  natural  death, 
and  be  buried  in  oblivion's  grave  ?  No  !  none  can 
pretend  it.  And  it  is  for  those  who  preach  such 
sentiments  to  reflect  well  upon  their  ways. 
j  But  it  may  be  said  that  "  humanity  would  not 
24 


270  APPENDIX. 

bear  such  a  portrayal  of  misery  :  it  would  sink 
under  it."  Yes,  it  would  sink  under  it.  And  this 
confession  affords  us  the  following  argument.  De- 
duct from  endless  punishment  a  sufficiency  of  horror 
which  would  leave  a  remainder  that  humanity 
might  bear  to  be  threatened  with,  which  must  leave 
the  punishment  limited,  and  of  wholesome  restraint, 
and  then  you  will  have  the  Universalisfs  principle 
for  effecting  moral  reformation  in  the  world.  This 
would  be  a  punishment  that  might  be  preached 
with  faithfulness  and  good  effect.  So,  this  confes- 
sion of  the  limitarian  explodes  his  doctrine  and 
establishes  ours ! 

But  it  is  manifest  —  and  with  this  conclusion  I 
leave  the  subject  to  the  reader's  mind  —  that  all  that 
is  wanted  to  exterminate  the  doctrine  of  endless 
torment  from  the  church  is  to  preach  it  faithfully. 
Then  would  it  fall,  and  great  would  be  the  fall 
thereof:  the  heavens  would  rejoice,  and  the  earth 
be  glad.  Amen. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA   LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE   ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

Books  not  returned  on  time  are  subject  to  a  fine  of 
50c  per  volume  after  the  third  day  overdue,  increasing 
to  $1.00  per  volume  after  the  sixth  day.  Books  not  in 
demand  may  be  renewed  if  application  is  made  before 
expiration  of  loan  period. 


8  1S23 


t3488l 


